On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, John Peterson wrote:
> OK, hopefully there won't be too much code duplication
To avoid code duplication in some of the more intricate
vector-or-scalar methods, I'm having to define a few methods suitable
for generic programming: e.g. TypeVector::slice(i) returns the ith
entr
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, John Peterson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Roy Stogner wrote:
I think it's the best we can do in C++. We really want a ton of
common non-cut-n-pasted code between the vector and scalar FE classes,
we don't want the gross inefficiencies (and backwards compatib
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
> I think it's the best we can do in C++. We really want a ton of
> common non-cut-n-pasted code between the vector and scalar FE classes,
> we don't want the gross inefficiencies (and backwards compatibility
> breakage) implied by a runtime p
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, John Peterson wrote:
>> template
>> class FEGenericBase {...};
>>
>> typedef FEGenericBase FEBase;
>> typedef FEGenericBase FEVectorBase;
>
> Urk... I guess my own preference would have been for *fewer* templates
> in the FE hierarchy rather than more,
Mine too, trust me.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
> After talking to Paul and looking at our first crack at the code, it's
> starting to become apparent that these two classes ought to be
> template-parameter-distinguished versions of the *same* class.
> There's just a ton of redundant code ot
