Re: [eigen] still the solve() API debate

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Going back to the solve API. What about
>> MagicReturnType<...> solve(const MatrixBase<...>& b) const; // and
>> void solve(MatrixBase<...>& b) const;
>> For the first one we may pass rvalue objects and everything is fine
>> and for the second one, well, rvalue objects don't make any sense...
>> so here we don't care.
> precisely, Gael's point was that they do make sense, e.g.
> A.solve(b.start(n))
> and use cases come from the implementation of blocked algorithms.

Thanks for repeating that again - it seems I was a bit slow.
I ran out of ideas and am now convinced that the .inplace()-proposal
(proxy class) is the only option.


Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+