On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:39:03 +0100 "Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:874pvayao2.fsf@pereiro.luannocracy.com...
"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
"David Abrahams" wrote
Joel de Guzman writes:
advance_iterator looks general enough.
What *is* an advance_iterator?
FWIW:
fusion::advance_iterator< Sequence, // the sequence to advance over Stride, // number of positions in underlying //sequence to move on 'next' StridedPosition, // underlying sequence::position * // Stride + Offset Offset // offset in underlying sequence units
The main use is to return a column in a linear sequence representing a matrix.
That's a well-known idea already in the literature;
Its not just an idea. I got one that works with fusion :-)
it's known as a
"strided iterator." Can we use the common terminology?
OK, but it doesnt sound very cool, compared to advance_iterator. IMO everything in fusion should have a cool name :-)
Though I think this sort of thing would be flushed out in a review, honestly, when I first read "advance_iterator", I had the same question pop into my head - what is it? Admittedly, strided_iterator is a better name, and you get the gist of its purpose by name alone - can't say that for advance_iterator though.
Same with inner_product. dot_product is way cooooler.
If your dot product is indeed an inner product, then an inner_product is what you should call your op - being explicit rather than suggestive is always better (, sorry, just that my mathematics grounding makes me speak out on this one). Cheers, -- Manfred Doudar - Research Engineer National ICT Australia - Canberra Research Lab | www.nicta.com.au Research School of Information Sciences and Engineering (RSISE) The Australian National University - Canberra, ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA