From: Ullrich Koethe (koethe_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-18 15:35:26
thanks for the long reply. I really appreciate this. I think we have both
made our points clear. Now I'd like to hear the opinion of others...
> And finally, DataAccessor is an interesting idea worthy of
> investigation, but it spans beyond images. The right way to approach
> this, in my opinion, is to try to make the case for DataAccessors as an
> addition to the standard. If DataAccessors are accepted, lots of my
> objections will no longer hold.
Exactly. But my favourite solution would be to extend the language so that
one could implement separate lvalue and rvalue versions of operator* and
operator (similar to the pre- and postfix increment operator). But I
don't know whether this is possible, especially considering backward
-- ________________________________________________________________ | | | Ullrich Koethe Universitaet Hamburg / University of Hamburg | | FB Informatik / Dept. of Informatics | | AB Kognitive Systeme / Cognitive Systems Group | | | | Phone: +49 (0)40 42883-2573 Vogt-Koelln-Str. 30 | | Fax: +49 (0)40 42883-2572 D - 22527 Hamburg | | Email: u.koethe_at_[hidden] Germany | | koethe_at_[hidden] | | WWW: http://kogs-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/~koethe/ | |________________________________________________________________|
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk