Re: [ublas] Re: Not using the default constructor as zero?

From: Gunter Winkler (guwi17_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-25 06:53:38

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 25 January 2005 12:02, Ian McCulloch wrote:
> > We already discussed this issue at the developer meeting. We finally
> > decided to use value_type(0)
>
> Did we?  I know there was a lot of discussion on value_type(0) versus a
> free function (perhaps zero<T>() or construct_zero<T>()).  I don't remember
> for sure what the conclusion was, but I _thought_ it was for a free
> function.

I just reread the conclusions: matrix.resize(...) and vector.resize(...) 
required value_type(0) if they preserved the data. This behavior is now 
deprecated and will be replaced by a free function resize(...) which 
preserves data. A resize without keeping the data only needs the default 
constructor. 
The member function clear() still needs value_type(0).

BTW: How far is the progress in ublas_pure?

mfg
Gunter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB9jNHghsXb/J0PcERAqg6AKCbfr/C+jpj/pFr0ILahEYI9kL2fQCeLjHL
PK2F+99cbXRp1c32cnOJV20=
=Odl/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----