Jeremy Graham Siek writes:
On Jul 5, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Peter Schmitteckert wrote:
Salut,
(note that I only use the dense matrices of ublas)
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Toon Knapen wrote:
This is just a matter of documentation. AFAIK there is no accepted concept that demands 'num_rows' and 'num_columns'. The '1' and '2' refer to the first and second index which is also a nice convention IMO.
I prefer size1 and size2, since it fits to the sheme of having a tensor structure with a size3.
Mixing up abstractions is not a good idea. Matrices and tensors are different creatures. True, sometimes it is useful to think of a tensor as a matrix, and having adaptors or views that allow for this is a good thing.
The names we use for operations should match the common terminology from the problem domain. In this case, the common terminology is rows and columns.
Neither 'size1' nor 'num_rows' are generic, though. What you want is something like template< int n > size(int_<n>); The particular int_<n> specializations then can be typedef'ed to something more mnemonic, e.g. typedef int_<0> rows; or even extern int_<0> rows; The lack of this genericity will force you, sooner or later, to resort to code duplication. I believe Vesa made the same point a long time ago... yep: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/60338. -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering