[sorry for dropping in the conversation, but I love these games of play-with-syntax] On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Joel Falcou <joel.falcou@lri.fr> wrote:
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
By overloading generically, I mean the way other operators are overloaded in (Boost) LA: they're namespace-scope functions that kick-in for any conforming user-defined vector or matrix type.
Oh yeah OK i see it now. What about:
at(v, (_2,_1,-_3)) = xxx ; ?
Perhaps at<2,1,-3>(v) = xxx
That would lose the convenience of ADL (AFAIK ADL does not work when you explicitly specify the template parameters). Also you would have to use a different syntax if you were to add the possiblity to specify the swizling at runtime. This could be made to work: (_2,_1,-_3)[v] = xxx; but it is counterintuitive, altough in a perverse way it is consistent with the rest of the language (think "string"[n] and n["string"]). A more realisistic and simpler syntax would be: at(v)[_2,_1,-_3] = xxx; at() could be implemented as the identity funciton by default so that operator[] can be easily implemented as a member of v. To adapt existing vectors or matrices one would just overload at() for v and return a proxy. Just my 0.02€ -- gpd