[Insight-users] embarassingly basic question

[Vladimir S. Fonov]

Hello,


I create helper functions like these:

template<class T> typename itk::Point<T, 3> ITK_POINT(const T&x,const 
T&y,const T&z)
{
   T dummy[3]={x,y,z};
   return itk::Point<T, 3>(dummy);
}

template<class T> typename itk::Point<T, 2> ITK_POINT(const T&x,const T&y)
{
   T dummy[2]={x,y};
   return itk::Point<T, 2>(dummy);
}

...
     itk::Point<double,3> point3d=ITK_POINT<double>(10,20,30);
     itk::Point<double,2> point2d=ITK_POINT<double>(10,20);



On 12-04-25 03:44 PM, Rupert Brooks wrote:
> Its when I show ITK to other people that I end up with embarassingly
> simple questions that I ought to know the answer to.
>
> When declaring an itk::Point (or vector, etc, anything based on
> FixedArray) there is no constructor that assigns values that i know
> of.  So one always ends up doing something like
> itk::Point<double, 3>  p;
> p[0]=1.1;
> p[1]=2.2;
> p[2]=3.3;
>
> or
>
> const double[3] dummy={1.1,2.2,3.3};
> const itk::Point<double, 3>=dummy;  // at least this way we can get a
> const itk::Point
>
> It was pointed out to me that this is quite verbose.  A certain ideal
> would be, eg
>
> const itk::Point<double,3>  p(1.1,2.2,3.3);
>
> Is there a better way?  Was this a design choice, or an inevitable
> consequence of variadic constructors not being possible in C++?

-- 
Best regards,
  Vladimir S. Fonov ~ vladimir.fonov <at> gmail.com