| Re: [eigen] about .lazy() |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] about .lazy()
- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:52:36 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=CYGHUQtnH/nd+GXMO5ee43dR/hrw35/vHI0ylDEyycM=; b=kxXaVXNSfZlL25b9e2TVJm0Uvdc0JJWOCRyvNJqG2c2t93NdC3ANEttTtvqbamt0mU 2LumOCpehXKfKIKwJzpa2Lr6Zh2NTKyv8h4bWGScAE1JbU67d2kZUepNcjDriq9z0/EY 5Tpj9B/rwL0zgiKDvpHDl9dP9jiR0Z2+CiEbc=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=twj57VS3eE6HYox+6uqYyjki/BPYf3EZR8HVLsZnj9VN4qx6Qwvg3pTc+jKwEBIL0u czmi4kBuhadfN8j/ebH0WzeRm0SaTyPqje2FCok3PuMgBdZ+XAiTC1EFglylXT3IiKHo KYderiaIC7RVj6hrsZHKqIrZPaM32IUMj5UFA=
2009/8/15 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
> I'm OK with this behavior but I think that it needs to be a little
> more predictable. Perhaps it could be explicitly said that
> a.noalias()+=b assumes that there is no aliasing between a and b. In
> this way, the decision of evaluating b or not becomes purely an
> optimization issue and we're free to do what we want in the backyard
> :)
D'oh. Now that I'm thinking about it... it should be obvious that
a.noalias()+=b assumes that there is no aliasing between a and b.
That's exactly what noalias() is supposed to mean :) I guess it will
be obvious to the user though it's still worth saying in the docs. I
got confused because I looked at it from the impl point of view :)
Benoit