From: christopher diggins (cdiggins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-15 08:20:34
----- Original Message -----
From: "Toon Knapen" <toon.knapen_at_[hidden]>
To: "ublas mailing list" <ublas_at_[hidden]>; <ublas_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: [ublas] Aliasing for += and -=
> christopher diggins <cdiggins_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> So IIUC you are suggesting that the uBLAS should not have views (like
> matrix_row, matrix_col, matrix_range etc). Of if uBLAS would have views
> they are not implemented as being a proxy to the original data but instead
> copy the data.
> This is certainly a good idea in many cases. For instance if you're going
> perform a lot of operations on a matrix_range, it might be much better for
> performance to make sure that the data in the matrix_range is continuous
> memory. Currently I advise people to assign their matrix_range to another
> matrix in such cases. At the end of the operations they should however not
> forget that they need to assign the matrix to the matrix_range if their
> intention was to modify the matrix that is pointed to by the matrix_range.
> To conclude I think both approaches (proxy-views and deep-copy views) are
> both necessary.
Me too. This is why I suggested two namespaces. Perhaps the namespaces would
better be named:
The other alternative is to use a #define USE_PROXY, but I don't
particularly like that approach.
> Deep-copy views however can be implemented using proxy-views
> (as I described above). And actually deep-copy views are plain containers
> instead of being views. And whenever we have expressions with containers
> instead of views we can safely ignore aliasing.
Right and when we can ignore aliasing our basic operations are more
Thanks for so eloquently articulating my point!