Now, seriously... I'll refrain from using bad words here because we're talking about the Boost fellows. It MUST be my mistake to see things this way, but I can't understand why, so I'll ask it here; maybe someone can enlighten me in this matter. Here it goes:
uBLAS has this nice class template called bounded_vector<> that's used to create fixed-size vectors (or so I thought).
From the Effective uBLAS wiki (http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Effective_UBLAS):
The default uBLAS vector and matrix types are of variable size. Many linear algebra problems involve vectors with fixed size. 2 and 3 elements are common in geometry! Fixed size storage (akin to C arrays) can be implemented efficiently as it does not involve the overheads (heap management) associated with dynamic storage. uBLAS implements fixed sizes by changing the underling storage of a vector/matrix to a "bounded_array" from the default "unbounded_array".
Alright, this bounded_vector<> thing is used to free you from specifying the underlying storage of the vector to a bounded_array<> of the specified size. Here I ask you: doesn't it look like this bounded vector thing has fixed size to you? Well, it doesn't have.
At first I felt betrayed by the wiki, but then I reconsidered the meaning of "bounded" and I think I can let it pass. But in case you, like me (I'm still uncertain), is still wondering if this makes sense, what I found out is that the bounded_vector<> actually can be resized, it may only not be greater than the size specified as template parameter.
So, first off, do you think they've had a good reason not to make a real fixed<< size vector or matrix type?
Do you think it's okay to "sell" this bounded -- as opposed to fixed-size -- vector to the users of my library as a "fixed-size" vector replacement, even named "Vector3" or "Vector2", like the Effective uBLAS wiki did?
Do you think I should somehow implement a vector with fixed size for this purpose? If so, how? (Sorry, but I'm really new to uBLAS; just tried it today)
I am developing a 3D game. Should uBLAS be used for the calculations involved in this ("hey, geometry!", per Effective uBLAS wiki)? What replacement would you suggest, if not?
-- edit
And just in case, yes, I've read this warning:
It should be noted that this only changes the storage uBLAS uses for the vector3. uBLAS will still use all the same algorithm (which assume a variable size) to manipulate the vector3. In practice this seems to have no negative impact on speed. The above runs just as quickly as a hand crafted vector3 which does not use uBLAS. The only negative impact is that the vector3 always store a "size" member which in this case is redundant [or isn't it? I mean......].
I see it uses the same algorithm, assuming a variable size, but if an operation were to actually change its size, shouldn't it be stopped (assertion)?
ublas::bounded_vector<float,3> v3;
ublas::bounded_vector<float,2> v2;
v3 = v2;
std::cout << v3.size() << '\n'; // prints 2
Oh, come on, isn't this just plain betrayal?
