Boost logo

Ublas :

From: Dima Sorkin (dsorkin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-11 06:10:40

Quoting Michael Stevens <mail_at_[hidden]>:
> Agreed. The namespace intrusion required to user define a type_traits is very
> nasty.
> I'm not sure that adding a template type_parameter to each ublas function
> would be such a good idea. In syntax overhead of adding such to the hundreds
> of functions which could potentially make use of such a parameter would seem
> to outway the benefits.
> What is the current Boost best practice in providing such extensible traits
> classes? One possibility is to provide the traits as a template argument to
> the containers. These ultimately determine how various operations are
> performed.

I agree. The real problem is binary operations. How do you control them,
other than by passing "promote_traits" class as type-parameter.