From: Paul C. Leopardi (leopardi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-15 19:30:58
Chiming in below.
Best, Paul Leopardi
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:20 pm, christopher diggins wrote:
> > 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.
I don't know enough about uBLAS to be sure of what I'm saying, but could proxy
vs deep_copy be retrofitted to the uBLAS interface by using policy classes
rather than namespaces? Would that make it easier or harder for the user? How
much disruption would it cause to the uBLAS source code?