From: Thomas Matelich (sosedada_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-28 17:27:59
Paul Moore wrote:
> I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are right. There remains a
> question as to whether such "utility" functions should be bundled in with
> the boost rational library. There's an argument for (otherwise, finding such
> algorithms is hard), but there's also a (practical) argument against -
> namely that, as the maintainer, I'm not competent to evaluate or maintain
> such code...
True this is a problem, but isn't that why we have this community of people
that know ~everything.
> I think that including Reggie Seagraves' algorithm as a utility function may
> be a reasonable idea. But I'm not sure. How often will it be used? Is the
> need to specify a maximum denominator reasonable in a general usage context?
> Is the algorithm correct (no criticism of Reggie, but I sure can't tell!!!)?
I thought that was one of the purposes of boost -- to explore possible new
standard functionality and determine it's usefulness by having people use it.
I'm not advocating adding everything under the sun, but if there are two camps
of people on whether to add functionality, I'd say provide it and then find out
how well it is working. If the decision is made to remove it later, those
people who want that functionality are not prohibited from maintaining it
-- Thomas O Matelich Senior Software Designer Zetec, Inc. sosedada_at_[hidden] tmatelich_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk