Re: [glas] arrays and views
From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-15 11:17:46
I do not think using shared-ptr's are a good idea and second I do not
think using shared-ptr's will solve any problem.
I think we currently can see the matrix as (embedding or being) the
storage and matrix-slices or any other matrix-view as being a view on
this storage. I personally do not see how using shared-ptr's would
Second, using shared-ptr's on small matrices might induce a performance
penalty. And thus IMHO to be avoided for the same reason we are not
using polymorphism inside the matrix libraries.
Neal Becker wrote:
> I hope you'll excuse a naive question. There are a number of c++ array-type
> libraries. For example, boost::ublas. It seems to me that the distinction
> between an array vs. an array slice leads to significant complexity in the
> I think the design could be much simpler. There are only 2 objects: storage,
> and views of storage. As long as storage is managed, e.g.: reference
> counted, there is no need to make a distinction between various types of
> A view then specifies any number of dimensions, slicing, basing, and holds a
> (e.g.) shared_pointer to storage.
> Any thoughts?
> glas mailing list