[std-interval] Mathematical relations and default initialization

[Chenyi Hu]

Agree with George that there is no perfect answer. Not seeing explicit
support for 2 - [0,0] yet. However, it saves initialization time
significantly for applications involving large-scale sparse systems.

Chenyi

>>> Sylvain Pion <Sylvain.Pion at sophia.inria.fr> 9/14/2006 5:01 PM >>>

Ron Avitzur wrote:
>>>>  1- no default constructor at all
>>>>  2- [0,0]
>>>>  3- empty
>>>>  4- whole
>>>>  5- uninitialized tag
>>>>  6- see below (something a la "singular iterator")
>>
>> As George says, there is indeed no perfect choice.  I can see good
>> arguments supporting 2, 3, 4, 6 (I see 5 as a debug mode allowed by
6).
> 
> In defense of 1, I'll reiterate my concern from April that folks
expect
> declaring  { double foo[kSize]; ...} is free while having any
default
> constructor can make { interval<double> foo[kSize]; ... } in an
inner
> loop be very costly.
> 
> I encountered precisely this a few years ago in a context that made
it
> very difficult to recognize the inefficiency.

So, you are arguing for 6, like me.

1 means no default constructor, that is, a private one.
At least, this is how I understood 1.

-- 
Sylvain
_______________________________________________
Std-interval mailing list
Std-interval at compgeom.poly.edu 
http://compgeom.poly.edu/mailman/listinfo/std-interval