|Re: [eigen] Quaternion and expression template|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Quaternion and expression template
- From: Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:00:40 +0100
- 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=vjnGz8PCD5JVShz3vhWjKzx9shGbTZV7lAYNFeK/FOk=; b=JmMts9HEVRp6++1eU6cGrHgS06NDgZ0gWTvcZimbgTaG+ISyCUD53kMiuxsdSKcIgW 1fbIflYctsLBpwRyysKiclVnAo5q78NwqS5UPN9oDGZVe01H9kj9QFhJlH5Zp/PIiqw8 63AomszGIsSkfeXXno/X+DsZWpZSa+/nBwwuM=
- 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=VxWhsr3hoFcV3/xs3WPsCsgzZQcYnnIomuV2Gs8X0yuoWX4z57HQGYyGoyT6s1jgzo Or9jecySSzvLT+F0WP3FJxlnWl4iq4Ydv4qqs9GrJa8B5+lpgW9L+I7IfSjLJkC6hrw4 ES+0S5w+FGCFe3MD3pGErNk3zigarkKy/F964=
Mathieu, do you want to provide the patch - you already did all the research? Otherwise, I will integrate it.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Mathieu Gautier <mathieu.gautier@xxxxxx>
Yes, it's better than the current situation.
But coming back to my previous proposal. Why should we implement a destructor when there is nothing to do. I agree, that in some cases it might be required but then we could do that in those cases. The thing is that there is one case left which we ignored. Destrcutors can be trivial (required for objects you want to put in unions, http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1025313/c-will-an-empty-destructor-do-the-same-thing-as-the-generated-destructor) and it is not possible to declare a destructor as such when it is explicitly implemented.
So since tagging with throw() does not help we should get rid of the Matrix destructor as well es the remaining (some specializations already have none) ei_matrix_storage destructors (when possible).