| Re: [eigen] An insistent plea for an input operator |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] An insistent plea for an input operator
- From: Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:07:29 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=IHlZMb4DH1FS9vUa1oHVN3eHW1B0OLPSyLRIanKY4Ow=; b=VTkMimw5yMkbUjOCwv6znqatiLgA1+W3iAjxzIXOqU4+sY93oYEyfnTK+E/GJlicnD p1EvWnUdMZKgeckiWilBVbwD9tB4P780GTylMVRadCEDExmnRglU9u46Zivvz78rOtJj FWAwUw2O4JefcQFuYVA+1qCVGQ2l7ikujPx4U=
- 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=jGqK43VxxD3it3ka+GVtsbtryzn3V+bMlLS6AMvUmJCF4EM3cC+2wxsQFsuYJe0K/C hC8jwHOP+qU5PSNheV2d0S3vGCwYhtXnyOVg8Eh5xF8ZKzFlz8kV5/6K+JsqkeaRKpOS m8JbSa/WzaKoVK040akrj+ZKDT04+y3NxDFds=
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2010/7/20 Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> I am not a big fan of this mainly due to safety reasons and
>> consistency reasons.
>>
>> Currently, you can even use an ifstream since it is an istream.
>
> Sure! How is this a problem?
Not really but somebody might think hey, it accepts input from
std::cin in the form of
1 2 3
4 5 6
why not from a text file... I admit, we can easily deal with that. I
was more like brainstorming. ;)
>
>> We
>> also need to deal with the way in which the data is given. Why should
>> it be given as 1 2 3 4 ... and not 1,2,3,4
>
> I think the whole point is that just because we support 1 2 3 4
> doesn't prevent us from supporting other formats too. We can accept
> multiple formats and for the general solution (in the future) I would
> like input to support any Eigen::IOFormat, just like output does. But
> even then, I don't see how it could be a problem that we support the
> very simple default format 1 2 3 4 ?
I just can't see right now how we can use Eigen::IOFormat while
keeping the suggested API. We need something like a class providing
several static operator>> functions taking different parameters or
such. I don't doubt that this is doable, I am just wondering whether
we might be quickly introduce API breaks.
>> For me, the inclusion of such an operator must at least be optional,
>> i.e. not automatically through Dense, Core or Eigen. If it were in the
>> Eigen namespace, how would I provide my own version?
>
> Aaah, good point !!
>
> Indeed if we accept Helmut's operator, you can't provide your own anymore.
>
> At least not unless we do something about it. We could certainly
> provide Helmut's operator as a simple default while letting you
> override it; there are various ways we could achieve that in c++. (Let
> it call a function from a template helper struct that you can
> specialize, etc, etc).
Maybe, once the Eigen::IOFormat is specified this is then easily doable.
I just want to emphasize that I am not all against incorporating
extended IO functionality, I am just against quick shots which might
back fire...
- Hauke