|Re: [eigen] Indexes: why signed instead of unsigned?|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Indexes: why signed instead of unsigned?
- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 10:14:25 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=uxBkc3WoxhJ1USySw4zOYJAdwDLXqrjAEoHzUBJrR9A=; b=IMC6XDn2B8ZDmYibiGYq2j7BMu67dVx8r+TFPIyHTz5A7qTqy2PWft4LZj4BnmboZC Z5olFM3Hs71AEJrmgn7kiBbjTl2O1g8Ybsdt4fPYm/meMF5XTBD5xFMUXnWnvzhKXiar yAqFjoYYNgIPCRrxfO9U5XU2BUKXDIJauBmn0=
- 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=oHYQ154ZC8kkBwplUCar4qYCGG9moHTZ4qNElDckKHLP8SDpW97agtkryzQ8aD8MBA ynJj6VvIcwoTCNYm+R7I7rPzYX6sBg5SewN8HRUcmahFp8pOxKtSlts0pEdSc1ZHZ4gL /EMjAt//hY8sIiJi4Q6uwNr61kxzQ5z+lANFk=
See e.g. answer here:
2010/5/8 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@xxxxxxxxx>:
> First of all, thanks for putting this library together. It certainly took
> (and still takes) quite a lot of time and energy to build it and the end
> result is a extremely useful library which is both simple to use and also
> extremely efficient. Certainly I'm not alone when I say thanks for putting this
> code together.
> Having said that, while I browsed through the code I've noticed that Eigen has
> been written using signed integers for it's indexes. Is there any reason
> behind this design choice?
> Thanks for the help,
> Rui Maciel