On 8/13/07, Eric Niebler <eric@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
The issues Steven has raised wrt the use of commit(). If there really are no efficiency gains from the commit() technique, it is unidiomatic enough that I think it should go away.
Have you followed recent messages in that thread? I was able to explain the rationale for the inserters in a way that made sense to Steven. This is the key message:
Yes, but rereading that one indicates that I may have misunderstood some things. Is it the case that the ordered_inserter/commit() design is an optimization for the general case of sequence insertion? If so, I question whether the user should be forced to use this when there is an efficient iterator-based technique that works as well. In fact, many people will choose an iterator-based insertion technique even if it's less efficient, when the efficiency gains are insignificant, simply for the readability and maintenance benefits.
coarse_grain() and fine_grain() need to be customizable. I would still like to see a int/floating point mapping from sample space to index space for dense_series<> that you alluded to in a previous email.
Are you referring to an interpolating facade? Yes, that is a must have.
That would be great to have too. I was refering to the use of arbitrary up-sample and down-sample functors in these functions. Zach Laine