Re: [boost] Status: random numbers library

From: Jens Maurer (jmaurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-04-26 15:19:55

John Maddock wrote:
> I've had a quick look at the random library and started porting it to C++
> Builder,

For me, it would be sufficient to get the right tips in what direction
to proceed with BCC.  Before someone makes great effort to do
the porting, probably there is a more generic answer.

>  C++ Builder falls over on derived default non-type
> parameters:
> 
> template <class T, T val = computed_result<T> >
> class X{};

This cannot be the reason for boost/operators.hpp failing in the
context of boost/rational.hpp, since that does not use template
*value* parameters at all.  Do we need
BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION for boost/operators.hpp
so that there are no template default parameters in boost/operators.hpp
at all?

> As far as I could see, these are implemention details and can be
> removed/hidden completely in the random library?

After we're sure what the real reason is, we can work around
appropriately.  It would be good to know what has to be done
to boost/rational.hpp for a start; this might be simpler.

> I got most of the test code to compile by removing these, but some of the
> distribution adapters still wouldn't compile, 

There are template *type* parameters with defaults in the
distribution functions, do they pose that problem?

Jens Maurer