| Re: [eigen] still the solve() API debate |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] still the solve() API debate
- From: Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:23:09 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Az736zQC2wlopikg06xWdSrTws5fMnOZySdrgvUWNMY=; b=DdbEl3z6nj4DthCz38TQROHAowk4DSpvJKlTAtKv85CyzVJtmjWt1Yokhf393rFyv+ re1eaADCA2+Lfz94B94X933CM/BrW/zIOZnSrHg1QUuVIXw8qYC1Z/3sKCoJ3SNTlIH8 81k6W13SZnQyUlfnnvGDFtkWhhFpBFmGBrQl0=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=hBAmQlYgZeXih/euGsgDBgtDBVGuItS+0D8mRBcuQuJr8fNRz0yBC7s/hPRaVrnVCv M2Nwwac4svMn/26KFzo4qug686qJH0Hi8g99WamJZc11cADkYfccucTZpoCJbrmS+JE8 ve/9KO5/hM1kSPcHRM4bUlFLA+BscOaGEcKHQ=
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.
Hauke