Re: [boost] RE: Use common_factor.hpp?

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-08 16:21:34

At 05:06 AM 12/3/2001, Moore, Paul wrote:

 >From: Daryle Walker <darylew_at_[hidden]>
 >> There is now a header dedicated to computing the greatest
 >> common divisor or the least common multiple of two numbers,
 >> at compile-time or run-time.  I think there are two
 >> libraries currently using private GCD/LCM routines, pool
 >> and rational.  Maybe they can transition to the new header,
 >> if possible, by the next release?
 >
 >As discussed previously on the list, I can "drop in" the new GCD calls.
 >However, I do not have time to build and test the resulting code, other
 >than a quick "did the regression test still work" check on MSVC6. I
 >also won't have time to field any reports resulting from this change.
 >
 >If this is acceptable to the group, I can make the (pretty trivial) 
patch.

There is discussion going on about improving the release procedure. One of 
the aims is to identify regressions earlier, so that there is time to fix 
them before the actual release.

So go ahead and make the change.  If it causes problems, we will back it 
out before the release.

 >BTW, this also alters the public interface of the rational header, as the
 >gcd and lcm functions were previously documented as exposed by that 
header.
 >I assume that the loss of those functions from that location is also
 >acceptable?

It seems to me that is OK.

 >BTW[2], I see no performance or dependency notes for the new GCD library
 >(such as the rational library has). I'm not sure what implication this 
has
 >on the rational class documentation, as now I cannot be explicit about
 >performance or dependencies whenever I use gcd() (basically, everywhere).
 >Can performance and dependency notes be added to the gcd library? And can
 >someone check that no new dependencies, or worse performance, is added by
 >the new library. I can then just point the rational documentation at the
 >gcd documentation.

Daryle?

--Beman