Wouldn't changing vectors' operator = allow that?


vector &operator = (const vector &v) {

data () = v.data ();

return *this;



// pass by value for move semantics


vector &operator = (vector v) {


return *this;

and maybe add some checks depending on storage type.

On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 08:24 -0400, Jesse Perla wrote:
Hi there,
> I am writing many routines where I would strongly prefer: matrix<double> f(const matrix<double>& in)   to void f(const matrix<double>& in, matrix<double>& out )
> There has been a lot of discussion about this from the C++ groups:
> The move library to support this in C++03
>       * http://cpp-next.com/archive/2009/08/want-speed-pass-by-value/
>       * Also, I see that this is native to MTL:  http://www.osl.iu.edu/research/mtl/mtl4/doc/matrix_assignment.html#move_semantics
> I don't understand expression templates well enough to know the current state in ublas, but is it possible to return large matrices in this way?  For example, if I took the following code: http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?LU_Matrix_Inversion and had it return a matrix instead, would that give overhead for large matrices?
> Could I even nest it with no overhead in other vector expressions:   e.g.
> matrix<double> C, B; //setup.  Assume they are very large
> matrix<double> A = inv(B) + C;
> If this pattern is not usable yet, any idea of when it would be?
> Thanks,
> Jesse
> _______________________________________________
> ublas mailing list
> ublas@lists.boost.org
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ublas

Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook. Find out more.