Daisy S. Hollman
Daisy S. Hollman
AFAICT this was omitted for simplicity, since it can be added later. `subspan` does exactly this, essentially, and we could have `operator[]` call `subspan` in the case where `rank() >...
> With `-O3` and aggressive inlining, I am rather optimistic. Agreed. I believe the Kokkos team has done some analogous benchmarks, but some time has passed since then and we...
> From abstraction perspective, `a[i][j][k]` is syntax for array of array of array vs. multidimensional array. In many domains (certainly all the domains I've interacted with directly), these abstractions are...
> If a compiler elides intermediate temporaries and the nested types do not count towards the max inline depth for the optimizer then this feature could be supported with minimal...
@hcedwar If we introduce the changes you want to make to the accessor, we'll have to go back to LEWG anyway, so we might as well think about what else...
@hcedwar [http://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21jacksonville2018/P0900](http://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21jacksonville2018/P0900) here are the notes on that discussion in LEWG. I think you weren't there for that meeting, and the notes are under another paper number because that paper's...
@hcedwar The design that LEWG approved is [here](http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21jacksonville2018/LibraryEvolutionWorkingGroup/D0454r1.html), in the section Accessor Policy Requirements. This is what was up on the screen when we voted. Please let me know where...
> The straw polls were for variadic or not properties, with accessor policy as a single template parameter. The straw poll I quoted was specifically for the design that was...
@dsunder why did we remove the nullptr constructor again? Don’t we want this to be a nullable type?
That was feedback on span, and it was pretty controversial. I don't think span intends to remove the nullptr constructor. I think it was made by someone who wasn't familiar...