dolfin team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>]

Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> 2008/7/8 Garth N. Wells <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > Anders Logg wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 02:55:30PM +0200, Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
> > > > You probably don't need the explicit keyword for copy constructors as
> > > > done in Functions.h , PetscMatrix.h, uBlasMatrix.h, EpetraMatrix.h.
> > > > This has the added effect of not being able to pass functions as
> > > > arguments (perhaps that is bad but anyhow).  Having just pulled this
> > > > seemed to make my code a bit unhappy.
> > > You should not need to have a copy constructor to pass a Function as
> > > argument (at least by reference or as a pointer). Or are you passing
> > > it by value? That's probably not a good idea since it would involve
> > > copying the entire mesh as well as the vector of dofs.
> > This has become an annoyance for me because I do want to pass a Function
> > by value (I really do want a copy) and I can't do
> >
> >   Function f(mesh);
> >   std::vector<Function> F;
> >   F.push_back(f);
> >
> > when explicit is used.
> >
> > Garth
>
> Then remove the explicit keyword. I may have added it in too many places.
> The point is to avoid strange situations leading to memory leaks and the like.

I removed it. I'm happy to see it added by default, and then removed as 
necessary.

Garth