|Re: [eigen] Serious conflict between Dynamic and -1 in Diagonal<>|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Serious conflict between Dynamic and -1 in Diagonal<>
- From: Rhys Ulerich <rhys.ulerich@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:57:26 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=uqRVbKbbRRrEoeI/UiEv2n+xRLeR7w+ZELhrO+Ba6Mg=; b=l9AmfeCSnMhmdGWjqzTZnqjERV+NUqDZPf1g0qwcuyFgOKkWKCKWjtgMSpaWRBSjT6 3LSLIQW6tVtYpTPMeqF8vbnrlBQrCN7H9YQ+r+wsu55xHdCudBR1oF44KaPzXwlmph71 8x+CSRKBWTUhgQWyV1sWCy2yIFpRn8vVmYkBm1O4ICcCJ/lyiEAWe+ANpOktx1ePUpl1 uJfnQjCGiO7e45IGWio/FugmM/6Aknv/d4oYiYuHgt6Qxq0M6VPN9zPKzvVNpdXiMeGs R46Ppuf/omebLKM29EWny3jhgP3+XDVsqTh7oU/sa0ZOCPWHXCYSxoDG9HMbRD2ZrYbS nYCw==
> So introducing a new token seems to be less impacting
> solution. Moreover, I just thought about another argument: I think
> that except in Diagonal<>, Dynamic is only used to refer to a runtime
> *size* (positive), while here we are talking about a runtime *index*
> (positive or negative). If that's true, it's not chocking to introduce
> a DynamicIndex token.
> Does 'DynamicIndex' sound a good name to you?
Eh.. that makes the legacy "Dynamic" effectively "DynamicSize" and it
seems that you'd have to introduce some concept checking to ensure
folks didn't use Diagonal<Expression,DynamicSize>. Not sure how you'd
accomplish that cleanly since DynamicSize is signed and DynamicIndex
has to be signed.