Re: Fwd: [Ublas] Bug in 1.59 in file boost/numeric/ublas/detail/concepts.hpp

Could you test that it has been fixed with the following commit?
https://github.com/jdurancomas/ublas/commit/3d9611c3c0c041017b97ddb0f0265bb66ed3ed51

Thanks and Best Regards,
Joaquim Duran


2015-12-01 9:50 GMT+01:00 <[email protected]>:

> Corss-posting to ublas list:
>
> To me it seems that the regression was introduced in commit
> https://github.com/uBLAS/ublas/commit/d6e77ccdf47d8f9f7935f576b820cdb25263b95a
>
> Regards!
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <[email protected]>
> Date: 2015-11-30 15:24 GMT+01:00
> Subject: [Ublas] Bug in 1.59 in file
> boost/numeric/ublas/detail/concepts.hpp
> To: [email protected]
>
>
> In the migration from Boost 1.55.0 to 1.59.0 I found a bug in Ublas.
>
> For instance, in 1.55.0 function OneElement() declared in
> boost/numeric/ublas/detail/concepts.hpp line 716 looks like this:
>
> template<> double OneElement (double) { return 1.; }
>
> However, in 1.59.0 I think there is a copy'n'paste typo, because the
> corresponding function (which has been refactored) looks like this:
>
> template<class T> T OneElement (T) { return T(0.0); }
>
> Please note that the latter version returns a *zero*, instead of a *one*.
>
> This same bug affects the vector overload of the function, but the matrix
> version looks correct (it returns identity_matrix).
>
> This looks like a copy'n'paste typo, from a similar function
> called ZeroElement(), that, of course, returns a zero.
>
> I'm not sure if there is time to get a fix for this in the 1.60 release...
>
> Regards!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ublas mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ublas
> Sent to: [email protected]
>