From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-30 16:04:47
At 07:11 PM 11/30/2000 +0000, Kevlin Henney wrote:
>I think I would prefer to follow the lead of the STL and keep these
>separate. These are two of many possible algorithms, and I'm sure others
>could be added by users, included dreaded parsers from strings. As the
>set of conversions seem to be extensible and highly parameterisable,
>leaving them outside the class seems to give the strongest hint that the
>rational class template itself is independent of them.
"What he just said", as people say in the C++ committee meetings when
someone else beats them too the punch. I agree with Kevlin's thinking.
In any case, we have about beat this one to death. Let's leave it alone
awhile and see what Paul Moore comes up with.
One of the keys to avoiding libraries that have that "designed by a
committee" is to leave it up to the library's developer to balance out all
the arguments, and then make the final decision on issues like this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk