Skip to main content

Timeline for Generic matrices implementation

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 10, 2020 at 13:24 history edited CommunityBot
Commonmark migration
Jun 30, 2017 at 20:00 vote accept ExOfDe
Jun 26, 2017 at 9:03 comment added Loki Astari @moooeeeep Thats if you want auto conversion of the parameters to type Matrix.
Jun 26, 2017 at 8:42 comment added moooeeeep According to the recommendations given here and here, the operator+() should probably be implemented as a non-member function.
Jun 26, 2017 at 7:02 history edited Loki Astari CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 6 characters in body
Jun 26, 2017 at 6:10 comment added miscco The operators += and + should also have plain copy versions. If move semantics are implemented properly then the compiler can decide, if he wants to copy or move. Also the operator+= cannot be const qualified, as it changes the container
Jun 26, 2017 at 5:49 comment added Loki Astari A returned value can be an R-Value reference and thus allow move semantics to kick in. Which is useful for you Row() and Col() methods. But does not really apply to operator[]. What you want to do is return a reference to the Value which is an int/double etc so that you can update it in place. If you return by value you can't update in place.
Jun 26, 2017 at 5:47 comment added Loki Astari Update with examples to describe deferred execution,
Jun 26, 2017 at 5:45 history edited Loki Astari CC BY-SA 3.0
added 1442 characters in body
Jun 26, 2017 at 5:19 comment added ExOfDe About the perfect forwarding, you are absolutely right about that. What do you mean by delaying operation? Should store them in terms of commands and then later on execute them on demand? And my second question : I thought if returned by value the move ctor would kick in, am I wrong? If yes I agree returning by reference is the better choice.
Jun 26, 2017 at 3:43 history answered Loki Astari CC BY-SA 3.0