Re: [boost] GIL Review - PixelDereferenceAdaptors vs. DataAccessors

From: Ullrich Koethe (koethe_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-18 15:35:26

Hi Lubomir,

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 
compatibility.

Best regards
Ulli

-- 
  ________________________________________________________________
|                                                                |
| Ullrich Koethe  Universitaet Hamburg / University of Hamburg   |
|                 FB Informatik        / Dept. of Informatics    |
|                 AB Kognitive Systeme / Cognitive Systems Group |
|                                                                |
| Phone: [phone]                Vogt-Koelln-Str. 30 |
| Fax:   [phone]                D - 22527 Hamburg   |
| Email: u.koethe_at_[hidden]               Germany             |
|        koethe_at_[hidden]                        |
| WWW:   http://kogs-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/~koethe/      |
|________________________________________________________________|