From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-01 11:36:18
--- In boost_at_y..., nbecker_at_f... wrote:
> >>>>> "rogeeff" == rogeeff <rogeeff_at_m...> writes:
> I haven't checked the code carefully, but my concern is that the '%'
> operator when used with negative args returns either positive or
> negative values, machine dependent. Usually this requires an
> test or the code won't be correct in both cases. There was no such
> test in this code, so I was suspicious.
I did not know that. But anyway it will work in any case. The only
requirement is that after % |n|<m_cycle_size. But, as Tomass Witt
remarked I should check m_cycle_size != 0.
> rogeeff> To Neal Backer:
> rogeeff> I do not see what do we buy making Policy methods
static. Dave could
> I believe the code is more clear. Since the adaptor object is
> as an argument to the unary functions, I find it confusing if the
> argument is not used. In the case of binary functions, the lack of
> symmetry is also confusing. I was under the impression, perhaps
> wrongly, that the policies were really intended to be static, but
> not made static only to satisfy some broken compiler.
I prefer to treat it this way: stateless policies implemented using
static function. Statefull policies implemented member functions.
Other that that, as Dave sad, it is religious issue.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk