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...)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk