Re: [ublas] Transition to default handling of possible lvalue aliases

From: Ian McCulloch (ianmcc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-20 04:17:34

Michael Stevens wrote:

> On Monday 20 June 2005 08:55, Georg Baum wrote:
>> Am Montag, 20. Juni 2005 07:45 schrieb Kresimir Fresl:
>> > Dan Elliott wrote:
>> > > Michael Stevens wrote:
>> > >>Would the change of semantics be a big problem for anyone?
>> > >
>> > > I would like to express my feeling it is good library behavior to
>> > > *always* provide the correct answer while *allowing* the intelligent
>> > > user to optimize.  I am under the impression that uBLAS, in its
>> > > current
>> > > state, gives us both.  Therefore, although this has been an
>> > > enlightening, necessary conversation, I fear it is going to yield no
>> > > additional features while decreasing its usability.
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>>
>> Me too.
>>
> 
> Votes in so far.
> 
> For : Me, Ian, Christopher (I assume)
> Against : Dan, Kres, Greog

I was merely stating my current opinion with respect to aliasing, I was not
advocating any position with respect to uBLAS.

Cheers,
Ian