Re: 3D versus 2D Indexing and the Speed Thereof

[Luis F. Ortiz]

On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 18:21 -0400, John W. Eaton wrote: 
> On 10-Apr-2007, Luis F. Ortiz wrote:
>
> | A specialization that looked like:
> | 
> | 
> |         template <class T>
> |         int
> |         assign2 (Array<T>& lhs, const Array<T>& rhs, const T& rfv)
>
> Did you see my later message
>
>   https://www.cae.wisc.edu/pipermail/octave-maintainers/2007-April/002451.html

At the time that I wrote my reply, I had not as yet caught up with all the traffic; I tend to read my mailing
lists in chronological order.   Your later message clearly supersedes my reply and makes better sense
(i.e. embedding it in the representation class).

> ...
> | On the other hand, if we broke up assign2 into subfunctions that took
> | care of the common 
> | parts and were defined to be inline, the duplication could be kept to a
> | minimum.  
> | I would suspect that index() and assign() would in fact have common
> | code.
>
> Refactoring index and assign would also be OK, but I don't think it is
> immediately necessary.

Then, should take my patch and port it to octave 2.9.10, but use the embedding you suggested?

--Luis