Re: [boost] uBLAS formal review

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-29 08:41:47

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joerg Walter" <jhr.walter_at_[hidden]>

> > It seems
> > reasonable to me to factor this out into a POD-optimized value-based
> array.
> > That's the purpose of valarray, isn't it?
> > I know nobody likes it (valarray), but at least as a concept it is
> precisely
> > up to this task (being used as the internal storage of a higher level
> array
> > data structure).
> > If valarray<> usual implementations can't be trusted, I would code a
> > valarray like, POD-optimized, class as part of ublas and use it. It
> doesn't
> > need much of the valarray<> interface, so it can be quite simple.
> 
> I'm not sure about this. valarray<>'s greatest weakness w.r.t. uBLAS is,
> that iterators are missing.

Plain pointers should make fine valarray iterators, FWIW.

-Dave