>> It sounds like you'd rather be doing a tuple<int, int, int, int>?
Well, that would be my second shot, which I consider dusty but healthy.
*Ideally* I would do a MyClass { int p1; int p2; int p3; int p4; }.>> I'll try setting up a unit test with that and see if I can fix ... There's no need to hurry. I moved forward with the nested pairs. I wrapped it with access functions (p.second.second.second is the deepest raw int). Thanks, Renato On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:02 AM, Roy Stogner <royst...@ices.utexas.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Renato Poli wrote: > > Thanks. Will try that. >> It is constant size. >> In fact, I could make my way through in a dirty pair<int, pair<int, >> pair<int, int> > > >> I'm debugging something else right now. >> I will have to come back later an ddo the specialization. >> > > It sounds like you'd rather be doing a tuple<int, int, int, int>? > I'll try setting up a unit test with that and see if I can fix the > tuple specialization, but if you're in a hurry don't wait on me. > --- > Roy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Libmesh-users mailing list Libmesh-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-users
