Re: [ublas] Why is there no constructor taking an initial value?

Subject: Re: [ublas] Why is there no constructor taking an initial value?
From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-24 18:59:48

Karl Meerbergen skrev:
> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>> Gunter Winkler skrev:
>>> Am Donnerstag, 22. Januar 2009 16:13 schrieb Thorsten Ottosen:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I was a bit surprised that there is no way to fill a
>>>> triangular_matrix with a default value. Say, I would have expected
>>>> this to work:
>>>>
>>>> triangular_matrix<double> m(42,42,42);
>>>>
>>>> Is there any reason why this constructor is not provided?
>>>
>>> because it is not needed:
>>>
>>> // untested
>>> triangular_matrix<double,lower> m(( 
>>> triangular_adaptor<lower>(scalar_matrix<double>(42,42,42))));
>>
>> Right. I do something similar to get a zero matrix. But that syntax is 
>> *so* verbose. Normal STL containers has this type of constructor, and 
>> so users expect it to be provided.
>>
>> -Thorsten
> 
> I think a special constructor is not needed. 

This is not a question about if it is needed. Clearly you can initalize 
your matrix objects, it's just somewhat inelegant.

> It is not because STL 
> containers have such constructors that other packages should follow the 
> same ideas. 

It's one of boost's hallmarks, that we try to make as much as possible
similar to the STL. It's much easier to learn new libraries that way.

Any newbie would expect that constructor to exist, and so does more 
experienced developers. I took me some time to look through the docs to 
find the function, and to look into the code. Other people will go 
through the same steps and loose time that could be better spend otherwise.

> I would suggest a function fill(a, value) which is much 
> clearer than a constructor with three arguments. 

A constructor with three aguments is pretty clear IMO.

For vectors, it would of course be a constructor with two arguments.

-Thorsten