Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!ftpbox!motsrd!motcid!stephens
From: stephens@motcid.UUCP (Kurt Stephens)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Matrix Class Libraries
Message-ID: <6732@celery34.UUCP>
Date: 19 Mar 91 18:32:35 GMT
References: <13505@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <1991Mar18.025539.18998@athena.mit.edu> <ARI.HUTTUNEN.91Mar18173446@hydroman.hut.fi>
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Heights, IL
Lines: 36

Ari.Huttunen@hut.fi (Ari Juhani Huttunen) writes:

>In article <1991Mar18.025539.18998@athena.mit.edu> bjaspan@athena.mit.edu (Barr3y Jaspan) writes:

>>class Matrix {
>    ...
>>     inline double& operator()(int, int) const;
>    ...
>>};
>I think this points out one problem in C++. You really should be able to
>say:
>      inline double& operator[][](int, int) const;

>The problem isn't very serious, but it just isn't natural to access array
>members using notation  array(x,y), but array[x][y].

Just define:

inline
double*
Matrix::operator [](int i) { return Row(i); }

Matrix M;
double d;

	d = M[1][2];

"M[1]" evals to a double*, right?  The "[2]" indexes off the double*.
KISS (Keep It Simple Stephens) ;^)



-- 

Kurt A. Stephens		Foo::Foo(){return Foo();}
stephens@void.rtsg.mot.com	"When in doubt, recurse."