|
|
Ublas : |
Subject: Re: [ublas] Assignement operation proposal.
From: David Bellot (david.bellot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-30 11:40:17
Hi Nasos,
in fact I had a look afterwards on the operator we have, but didn't see
anything very promising. Well, I think your interface is nice like that and
we will put some BIG letters in the documentation for people to be careful
when writing code. Anyway, it's way better than a lot of things I saw in
many libraries.
As for the documentation, I am documenting everything else in ublas with
doxygen, so if you want, you can write doxygen comments in your code. If
you're not familiar with doxygen, let me do it, it will be a pleasure.
I will release the new "code" with doxygen commands little by little in the
SVN. The code will be a little bit bigger due to that but I am documenting
everything single piece of ublas.
Cheers,
David
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 17:33, Nasos Iliopoulos <nasos_i_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> David,
> I would love to have operators acting as you propose. I am afraid though
> that we will not be able to overload them, since their operation on
> primitives supersedes other overloads. I was thinking of ways of overcoming
> that, or using other operators, but I am relatively pessimistic on whether
> this can happen in a sound way.
> If you spot something in
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operators_in_C_and_C%2B%2B, I will give it a
> shot.
>
>
> > I will need some examples to write the documentation to all of that too
> and include it with the one I'm writing right now.
> After work today I will post examples showing the interface for people to
> comment on. I suppose after this cycle there will be a final version for
> examples to be included in the documentation.
>
> Best
> Nasos
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:38:07 +0200
> From: david.bellot_at_[hidden]
>
> To: ublas_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [ublas] Assignement operation proposal.
>
> Hi Nasos,
>
> the implementation looks very promising. A few quick thoughts before going
> to work today:
>
> > "automatic" choice seems to be dangerous to me.)
>
> it is kind of dangerous but this is what most of the people expect. Maybe
> another "marker" could help but it means overloading 2 operators, like for
> example mat << 1 ,2 ,3 % 12,14,16 % 33,44,55; So that the code will not be
> too much verbose.
> If I remember the operator & is used in LateX to separate lines in array ?
> (don't remember exactly). But that would be a "common" sign for users. I'm
> always in favour of simple writings when developing numerical code.
> That's all cosmetic of course: you can even think about wrting stuffs like
> mat =
> 1 | 2 | 3 ||
> 6 | 5 | 4 ||
> 7 | 8 | 9;
>
>
>
> > - Where do you think this should be added? As a separate header file, or
> included in vector_ and matrix_ expression headers?
>
> Better to have this function attached directly to vector_ and matrix_. One
> thinks about its immediate availability when programming.
>
> I will need some examples to write the documentation to all of that too and
> include it with the one I'm writing right now.
> Anyway, that all sounds very good and nice.
> Thanks.
>
> David
>
> --
> David Bellot, PhD
> david.bellot_at_[hidden]
> http://david.bellot.free.fr
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/direct/01/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ublas mailing list
> ublas_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ublas
> Sent to: david.bellot_at_[hidden]
>
-- David Bellot, PhD david.bellot_at_[hidden] http://david.bellot.free.fr