On Sat, 25 Aug 2012, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> wrote:
Understood, but you do *not* loose performance by having those fill functions
templates,
Let's see. The prototypes will then be something like this:
template<typename _RealType = double>
class normal_distribution
{
template<typename _UniformRandomNumberGenerator,
typename _OutputIterator>
void
fill(_OutputIterator __f, _OutputIterator __t,
_UniformRandomNumberGenerator& __urng,
const param_type& __p);
};
The std::generate(_n) function seems closer than std::fill. Not sure if
overloading that function (std::generate_n) would make sense, it avoids
changing the interface.
Now I want to define a specialized function which works for a double
iterator and all RNGs. That's not possible because it means partial
specialization.
Therefore I'd have to add another member function to the class. If
this is what is wanted I can do this (in fact, I have the code ready).
It just looks worse because the special functions are in some cases
architecture-specific. This means the code will be littered with
arch-specific code.
If the goal is to avoid listing several overloads in the class, it is
still possible to dispatch in the (out-of-class) definition of fill. Or is
the goal to make it extensible, in the sense that a user can still add
"specializations" (whatever the technical means used, which don't have to
be what C++ calls specialization)?
--
Marc Glisse
