|Re: [eigen] news from the LU / rank / solving API front|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] news from the LU / rank / solving API front
- From: Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:28:08 +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=UirFlAnDHe/EPyHZAGB7TaZ85OqFy+3A0yr/wJpWBa4=; b=eFXND4gxyrVu3kLzY5bvLVbILgZxXVYWTr6goUAwRF/QLH0TBCAi0TuD6UdVGFz7UN XlSQTeZR9AG1lfHfsOJxCJ7K9m7aNVRrCY3wSr2aIaai2f7Va3F8ZUSNrkCrlbtJDHaA vp1yIlDiNzZqRj8H7uRIfM79ssJ+KFSgC9ybo=
- 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=npH7w1g4oJk7snEmm9zbPML1gMdEUlOCk9qVrjQN5orC312m6D594DfFPYLFa7YYdO Xb5rWEtpW2JuWL6U+Tf39Yn1CzssEHZullxBJvVPv3D/4Wi7cFxSSLRXJBtagw9C8yCj Jqv67GOjp1IiPCzqIGR5kiV9KlJag2Jwda6Pw=
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
(...) So I
think that the name useThreshold was a bit bad. How about renaming it
to setThreshold (so it's clear that it's a permanent change) and then
That sounds good.
It's just a habit that I have, to make variables protected, just in
case some day someone wants to inherit. It actually happens in
practice when people want to adjust the API e.g. to make porting
easier (I know that Thomas subclassed Matrix in the past).
Yes, I did that too.
Why should the destructor be virtual here? Is it important, in our
context, to allow referring to Derived objects as objects of the base
(here LU) type?
Because when somebody derives and calls delete on the base class the derived class's destructor will not be called - and we can't safeguard this case by making LU's destructor private. We need it to be public. Anyways, currently there is no harm done.