Re: [glas] proposals
From: Karl Meerbergen (Karl.Meerbergen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-26 06:38:09
Thanks for all comments you sent the last few weeks. I have written a
document that summarizes some of the ideas. I hope it is helping us for
The link can be found here:
See the heading Papers
Comments are welcome
Karl Meerbergen wrote:
> I am preparing a proposal for an extendable backend system and
> concepts for vectors (and scalars to some extent).
> One of the design decisions I would like to make is to use free
> functions as much as possible. I think that free functions would make
> life alot easier and extensions more straightforward. I will explain
> later in detail.
> Does someone have a strong objection against
> size(v) instead of v.size(), stride(v) instead of v.stride() ?
> Similarly, one could argue that meta functions are preferred to
> members, e.g.
> size_type<V>::type rather than V::size_type.
> However, concept C++ suggests to organize this in a slightly different
> way, e.g.
> where VectorExpression is a concept.
> In pure C++, VectorExpression would be a traits blob.
> Therefore, I prefere the latter notation to meta functions with a
> single type member.
>glas mailing list