Boost logo

Boost :

From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-24 10:19:02

At Thursday 2002/10/24 01:58, Martin Weiser <weiser_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>On Mittwoch, 23. Oktober 2002 18:58, Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:


> > Now, I've made NO changes to what was in the header file describing the
> > function.
>True, but I don't think static variables in the free function are a viable
>option. It's limiting to do at most one integration at a time.

it was an example

> > I don't see how one could say the "interface" changed.
>Well, if the semantics is counted as part of the interface, the
>abovementioned limitation is quite a drastic change.

I think we have a language problem here

> > Of course, I prefer the function object idea as you show below, but I
> > don't follow your comment about "changing the interface".
> > Unless you're referring to the obvious change from a free function to a
> > member function, but somehow I don't think that's what you meant.
>I just wanted to point out that the interface must allow for storing
>previous values - either in a function object (preferred) or directly
>given as parameters (cumbersome) - or as static variables (which I think
>is dangerous).

You and I obviously have different meaning associated with the English
(well, American for me) word "interface".

>But we're getting into the nitpicking area here.


>Dr. Martin Weiser Zuse Institute Berlin
>weiser_at_[hidden] Scientific Computing
> Numerical Analysis and Modelling
>Unsubscribe & other changes:

Victor A. Wagner Jr.
PGP RSA fingerprint = 4D20 EBF6 0101 B069 3817 8DBF C846 E47A
PGP D-H fingerprint = 98BC 65E3 1A19 43EC 3908 65B9 F755 E6F4 63BB 9D93
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at