Re: [boost] Problems with rational.hpp

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-04 08:21:55

Thanks, John, that change seems to have worked for Intel C++. I am still
left with two issues:
1. I can't exactly reproduce the problem "in the small" for the intel
"premier support" channel
2. I still don't understand why rational is written this way, and would be
very happy if someone could explain.
-Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Maddock" <John_Maddock_at_[hidden]>

> Dave,
>
> >It seems to me that the compiler is probably in error here, but all the
> >same, I'm curious as to why we're not using IntType as one of the
> >parameters, rather than using a free T parameter. Can somebody fill me
in?
>
> I'm not sure if this is the problem here or no, but often I've had to make
> sure that partially overloaded functions take the same parameter "kind",
in
> order to ensure that overloading is correctly resolved:
>
> so:
>
> template <class T>
> void foo(T t);
> template <class T>
> void foo( const A<T>&);
>
> Doesn't work, but changing this to:
>
> template <class T>
> void foo(const T& t);
> template <class T>
> void foo( const A<T>&);
>
> and everything is fine.
>
> - John Maddock
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/