> I could provide another macro to declare stencil operators, e.g.
>
> DECLARE_STENCIL_OPERATOR1(Laplacian3D, A)
> return -6 * A(0,0,0) + A(-1,0,0) + A(1,0,0) + A(0,-1,0)
> + A(0,1,0) + A(0,0,-1) + A(0,0,1);
> END_STENCIL_OPERATOR
Why not making your DECLARE_STENCILxxx macros to declare both the
operator and the actual stencil in terms of the operator (eventually
in the same class). This would give a uniform and consistent view for
all the stencils defined this way (which can be used through the
applystencil mecanism or as operators in other stencil declarations).
Can this lead to code bloat or inefficiencies ??
Am I missing something ??
Theo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Theodore Papadopoulo
Email: Theodore.Papadopoulo@sophia.inria.fr Tel: (33) 04 92 38 76 01
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------- blitz-dev list --------------------------------
* To subscribe/unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@oonumerics.org, with
"subscribe blitz-dev" or "unsubscribe blitz-dev" in the body of the message
* Blitz++ web page: http://oonumerics.org/blitz/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 20 2002 - 04:30:05 EST