|
|
Glas :Re: [glas] Skalar-Like concepts from GLAS and MTL |
From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-23 07:01:24
Peter Gottschling wrote:
> Notice that T can model AdditiveGroup without the existence of a
> functor. Furthermore, every type models AdditiveGroup in my definition
> _iff_ it models AdditiveGroup in the GLAS definition.
First I did not see this. E.g. the current glas-proposal requires that
an AdditiveGroup has an operator+. But since you always derive the
functor from a global operator there is indeed an operator+ too.
>
> The type requirements are not more complicated than in the other
> proposal, only the concept definitions are. Why?
But should the concept talk about the functor or just talk about the
operator. The latter would make the concept definition easier to
understand (for people that start looking at the concept definitions).
>
> The answer is that this style of definition provides consistency between
> the additive concepts and the pure algebraic concepts, which is
> absolutely needed to consider the additive concepts as refinements of
> pure algebraic concepts. If there is another way to guarantee this
> consistency, we should discuss it. The definition in the GLAS concept
> was for my personal taste a little bit to general to lead the
> implementing in sufficient detail. The technique (or trick if you want)
> with the default functor nails down the consistency.
IIUC it is the idea that 'this style of definition provides consistency'
what you retract. Right?
As Karl mentioned in his reply, operator+ and operator* are the most
important. And if we want the glas models to be intuitive, these models
should support these operators. The only problem is than that we have
not enough operators available in C++. E.g. operator* on a matrix can
mean a matrix-matrix product or an element-wise product. This is for me
the main reason that we need to be cautious with operator overloading
and try to use functors instead.
toon