|
|
Ublas : |
From: David Bellot (david.bellot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-05-31 04:35:11
I never tried with complicated structures, but as far as I know, we can
simply do something like:
namespace boost::ublas
{
bla bla bla...
}
namespace boost::numeric::ublas
{
using namespace boost::ublas;
}
I just wonder why none of gcc and clang complain about that. I'm obviously
missing something because the recursion should be infinite,shouldn't it?
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/namespace#Using-directives
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:30 AM Stefan Seefeld via ublas <
ublas_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On 2019-05-30 8:07 p.m., David Bellot via ublas wrote:
>
> By the way, can I open a flame war on this list? :-D
>
> I doubt it. If you want a flame war, go to the boost list ! ;-)
>
> What's about getting ublas out of the namespace numeric. The sub-namespace
> numeric has never been used as expected in the early days:
> - in most of the code I saw so far, people are doing a using namespace
> boost::numeric.
> - you can't seriously type boost::numeric::ublas::fct(x,y) like you type
> std::fct(x,y). I mean, std is 3 characters only.
> - can we find a way to inject a new boost::ublas into boost::numeric to
> keep backward compatibility
>
> As ublas is going through massive changes and improvements (thanks Cem,
> Stefan, Paul, Thomas, <put your name here>,...), it's about time to think
> about these little details too which would give ublas a new face and
> simplify users' life.
>
> +1
>
> [image: Stefan]
> --
>
> ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
>
> _______________________________________________
> ublas mailing list
> ublas_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ublas
> Sent to: david.bellot_at_[hidden]
>
