Re: rationals initialization bug

From: d.frey_at_[hidden]
Date: 2000-11-28 06:08:11

--- In boost_at_[hidden], "Moore, Paul" <paul.moore_at_u...> wrote:
> From: d.frey_at_g... [mailto:d.frey_at_g...]
> > If we supply a constructor from a string, we won't
> > have problems with this those conversion problems:
> 
> Gack, no. I'm not parsing all possible floating point
> representations! That way lies madness... (I knew someone would
> suggest it in the end, though, so you get the prize :-)

Sounds like work, right? :) But we will have no operator>>, no
lexical_cast, nada - if there is no such beast as a floating point
parser. IMHO this should be part of a 'complete' class. Maybe the
parser could (should) be a separate class to keep rational clean and
easy. Or is the idea of a parser so far away from your wishes for
'rational' that it's useless to keep thinking about it? (Probably due
to simplicity, efficiency, etc. of 'rational')

Regards, Daniel