Re: [boost] rational.hpp

From: Paul Moore (gustav_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-13 17:25:43

On 13 Jan 2001, at 0:35, Stephen Silver wrote:
> Paul Moore wrote:
> > In principle, I can omit this and just use your version. However,
> > there are some issues. The first is minor - I would prefer to 
> > explicitly code a constructor from the base integer type, for clarity. 
> 
> Then why not do so?  There's no problem with having both - that's
> how I've been doing it.  The non-template one takes preference in
> overload resolution.

Doesn't work with MSVC. While this is likely a compiler bug, I am 
not going to make rational<> incompatible with the compiler I use...

> I don't get any errors (with GCC 2.95.2 or Borland C++ 5.5.1), even
> if I remove the non-template constructor as you have done.  Is this
> another MSVC++ template bug?

Quite possibly (but see my earlier comment...)

Paul.