Re: [ublas] Transition to default handling of possible lvalue aliases

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-24 12:55:08

Michael Stevens <mail_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Hi Jeff,
>
> On Monday 20 June 2005 16:07, Jeffrey McBeth wrote:
>> Not that I should get a vote (having just joined the list and started
>> using uBlas), but I'm all for the principle of least surprise.  We
>> shouldn't have to flip a magic switch like alias() just to make the
>> algorithm work right.  It should always work right.  The current
>> no_alias paradigm is the right way to go.
>
> The problem now is that people are 'surprised' that either code is suboptimal 
> with regard to speed and temporaries.
>
> I think it is hard to avoid surprises!

If you're willing to have people be surprised that their object code is
large you can avoid the other two surprises.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com