Thanks, I will try there. El 26/02/2012, a las 12:26, Thomas Klimpel escribió:
Guillermo Ruiz Troyano wrote:
It is my first post. I still write worst in English than in C++. I hope don't mess it up…
There is a special mailing list for ublas, see <http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ublas>
I'm been trying to use array_adaptor and shallow_array_adaptor to modify data with uBLAS. Yes, both classes are undocumented but it is useful (not this implementation) in some cases to have this kind of adaptor.
I regularly use "shallow_array_adaptor", especially I also have the "#define BOOST_UBLAS_SHALLOW_ARRAY_ADAPTOR" in my code. I haven't thought about whether there would be a way to fix the potential issues.
WHY NOT?
1. An unbounded_array and bounded_array constructor for C plain arrays and copy semantics. 2. To discontinue this adaptor_array (with a #ifndef) or modify. Its behavior can do it point nº1. 3. To fix, test and document shallow_array_adaptor (or another name). It should be useful.
Yes, I know about memory leaks. But there are things like vector proxies, iterator ranges, etc. The problem comes when you have not a clear semantic.
Sorry, I haven't tried to follow your description and reasoning in detail. I suggest you repost this to the ublas mailing list, then we can see who "will" take the time to think through this (and eventually work on patches).
Regards, Thomas
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost