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

From: Michael Stevens (mail_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-22 05:17:58

Hi Jeff,

On Monday 20 June 2005 16:07, Jeffrey McBeth wrote:
> 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.

The problem now is that people are 'surprised' that either code is suboptimal 
with regard to speed and temporaries.

I think it is hard to avoid surprises!

Michael