Subject: Re: [boost] [math] Enable move semantics for polynomials
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-14 14:45:59
On 8/14/17 12:07 AM, John Maddock via Boost wrote:
>> Sounds worthwhile. While you're at it, how about considering making
>> all the functions constexpr ?
> constexpr support would require the underlying container (std::vector)
> to be constexpr as well, in fact since new (variable sized) storage is
> required, I don't see how that would be possible at all..... you could
> as someone suggested have a fixed storage polynomial class with
> multiplication yielding a different type...
I think that someone was me.
> any non-trivial manipulation
> would lead to a complete explosion of template instantiations though.
This doesn't actually bother me. It's happened with the safe numerics
library and it hasn't created a problem - at least in my tests and examples.
I suggested this idea without really thinking it through. Hmmm - not an
uncommon occurrence. I see now that it would require a totally new
library based on tuple rather than on vector.
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk