From: Michael Stevens (mail_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-13 06:00:53
Patrick, Paul, and anyone else!
I have been thinking about this a bit further.
At the moment we have several major compilers still interpreting the prod
overloads differently. Also to me it looks like compiler implementing DR214
will never choose the prod<temp_type> overload as unambigeous.
I think the solution in uBLAS must be to drop these overloads and remove them
from the documentation. The "temp_type(prod(" form is a suitable alternative.
I still think the currect GCC 4.0.1 is odd as overloads defined with a simple
template argument (say S) behave differently then those defined with
expression<E>. This may be worth persuing as a bug report but I suspect given
the history of DR214 this may be a long and hard process!
All the best,
-- ___________________________________ Michael Stevens Systems Engineering 34128 Kassel, Germany Phone/Fax: +49 561 5218038 Navigation Systems, Estimation and Bayesian Filtering http://bayesclasses.sf.net ___________________________________