Hi,

2013/7/25 Bruno Lalande <bruno.lalande@gmail.com>

Can you point us to the places where some compilers complain? It might just be that there's a better way to do the static comparison. I'm asking that because it seems to me that since we'll only touch some of the involved traits, the problem will still remain for the other libraries anyway.

Probably nowhere in the library. I'm thinking about the situation when someone wants to write his own algorithm using a structure template and to check if passed index is ok, he uses static_asert. Something like this:

template <class Geometry, size_t I>

struct my_algo
{

    BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(I < dimension<G>::value);
    /*...*/
    my_algo<Geometry, I+1>::
    /*...*/

};

Ok, you may check dimensions outside, in some function calling the algorithm implementation. Then pass size_t Dimension, as it is done in the BG. Still, you could check if your implementation is ok, e.g. you didn't passed Geometry incompatible with passed Dimension, "in-place" where the algorithm is implemented.

This just shows small inconsistency in the definition of dimension.

We could also strictly define its type as signed and use signed ints in algorithms.

Regards,

Adam