On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Alexander Frink wrote:
IIRC one of the main reasons against the one-class-per-function scheme was that that the preprocessor is not very powerful. Since a function can have either default or user implemented diff, series, evalf etc. methods, one would need many macros implementing all possible combinations. The notation for the user to define his own functions would look horrible (at least we could not find a better one).
Further each GiNaC class unfortunately needs some supporting code (copy(), destroy(), duplicate() etc.) which would have to be generated for each class representing a function again and again blowing up code size.
I do not see why all this could not be done by virtual functions. Am I to be missing some obvious point? Cheers -richy. -- Richard Kreckel <Richard.Kreckel@Uni-Mainz.DE> <http://wwwthep.physik.uni-mainz.de/~kreckel/> - To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ginac-list@ginac.de with a subject of "unsubscribe".