On 09/17/2006 09:16 AM, Andy Little wrote:
"Larry Evans" <cppljevans@cox-internet.com> wrote in message news:eejch5$a8t$1@sea.gmane.org...
On 09/05/2006 08:36 AM, David Abrahams wrote: [snip]
1. use a fusion vector of fusion vectors. [snip] It suddenly dawned on me that 1 above seems a pretty simple solution. Is there some reason for not using 1?
Well, Lets assume that you could use one infinitely long sequence. That is slightly simpler (IMO) because it would work exactly the same for any size matrix, iow each could have the same representation, which might be something like:
matrix<rows, columns, sequence>
which actually is what I am currently going for.
I havent tried the alternative., but I suspect that the metaprogramming of it would be more complicated.
Ultimately I suppose the interface should be separated from the implementation and it should work for both, however I'm certainly not planning something Let's see if I understand. First, shorthand:
rank2_method means the fusion vector of fusion vector method. rank1_method means the existing method as illustrated in OP. One thing that would be more complicated with rank2_method vs. rank1_method is the initialization interface. IOW with the rank1_method there's this initialization interface: typedef tuples::tuple<T0_0,T0_1,T1_0,T1_1> rank1_type; rcmatrix<2,2,rank1_type> mat ( rank1_type ( val0_0 , val0_1 , val1_0 , val1_1 ) ); where rank1_type was matrix_elements in the OP. With rank2_method, the iterface would be: typedef fusion::vector<T0_0,T0_1> rank1_0_type; typedef fusion::vector<T1_0,T1_1> rank1_1_type; typedef fusion::vector<rank1_0_type,rank1_1_type> rank2_type; rcmatrix<2,2,rank2_type> mat ( rank2_type ( rank1_0_type ( val0_0 , val0_1 ) , rank1_1_type ( val1_0 , val1_1 ) ) ); So, the extra complexity the rank2_method is more typing; however, that buys you, IMO, clearer code. (WARNING: above code has not been compiled) Is there something I'm missing?