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

From: Jeffrey McBeth (mcbeth_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-20 09:07:43

Quoting Michael Stevens <mail_at_[hidden]>:

> 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.

Not that I should get a vote (having just joined the list and started 
using uBlas), but I'm all for the principle of least surprise.  We 
shouldn't have to flip a magic switch like alias() just to make the 
algorithm work right.  It should always work right.  The current 
no_alias paradigm is the right way to go.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.