------- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-11 00:44 ------- Bah... let's see what Richard thinks. Personally, I would have written it like this in the first place:
#include <iostream> template <unsigned R, unsigned C> class M { public: M( const double arr[R][C] ) { for (unsigned r = 0; r < R; ++r) for (unsigned c = 0; c < C; ++c) m[r*C+c] = arr[r][c]; } double operator()(unsigned r, unsigned c) const { return m[r*C+c]; } private: double m[R*C]; }; template <unsigned R, unsigned C> std::ostream& operator<<( std::ostream& str, const M<R,C>& m ) { for (unsigned r = 0; r < R; ++r) { str << "{" << m(r,0); for (unsigned c = 1; c < C; ++c) str << ", " << m(r,c); str << "}" << std::endl; } return str; } int main() { double vals[4][4] = { { 1, 2, 3, 4 }, { 5, 6, 7, 8 }, { 9, 0, 1, 2 }, { 3, 4, 5, 6 } }; M<4,4> m( vals ); std::cout << m << std::endl; return 0; } -- paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot | |org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44069