From: Rozental, Gennadiy (Gennadiy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-03 12:46:18
> I agree with you concerning the last point; named template
> parameters can
> be interesting. But I'm not sure it's what the users will principally
> used. I think they will use things like:
> typedef change_compare_policy
> <my_old_interval_type, my_new_compare_policy>
No. I thought more like
interval<T, rounding_is<some_rounding> >
> The reason it is in the public section is
> only an artifact of the way the library interface is designed and the
> compilers are conforming.
It should be in private section at least for conforming compilers. Use some
kind of ifdef switch and add private and friend declarations optionally.
> > 4. Why do you need set_empty and set_whole. Why could not you use "=
> > interval::empty()" and "= interval whole()"
> As for set before, if you refer to the documentation, you
> will see that
> set_empty and set_whole are not part of the published interface of the
I does not change my point. Why would you need excessive function in your
> > 5. interval free function interface/implementation IMO
> should be split up in
> > several independent headers. For example In many cases I
> may not need
> > trigonometric, transcendental and so forth functions over
> intervals. It may
> > also allow to minimize dependency on STL headers cmath and algorithm
> Yes, it is a possibility.
Look for example on MPL. Almost Every function in separate header. It could
be an overkill for you, but one solid header is even worse.
> I don't think it is possible to write the same class if the
> methods are
> static. There is a lot of situation where it is necessary to
> access local
Ok. I just thought that rounding policies are always stateless.
> > 2. Boost recommend to use T const instead of const T
> Ok. (if you remember where it is written, could you give me a
> pointer? thank you)
See coding guideline on boost site.
> > 4. using std::log and myriads of other symbols is all over
> rounding headers.
> > What about the compilers that does not put the into std namespace?
> It's a big problem. It's the reason why
> interval/detail/bug.hpp tests if
> BOOST_NO_STDC_NAMESPACE is defined.
Does not it too limiting. How many compilers you are cut off by this?
Interval library implementation does not use too much advanced C++ tricks so
it could work on wide range of compilers.
> > 5. Why interval implementation is located in utility.hpp
> header. It may be
> > misleading.
> If it is really disturbing, it can easily be moved elsewhere.
It would be more clear IMO.
> > 6. There are some commented lines. Since we are using cvs
> may be it worth to
> > clean the code?
> Yes it is worth to clean the code of the few remaining commented
> lines. But what do you mean by "Since we are using cvs" ?
People usually put if 0 or comment code cause they do not want to lose the
information. Since we are using cvs no need to bother - cvs will take care
> > Docs:
> > 1. Heading: May be it's worth to name the page Interval library (or
> > something like this) and put reference to the definition separately
> > somewhere.
> > 2. On top of the page right under he header there is TOC.
> IMO it is aligned
> > a bit strangely and it would look better if you delete <center> tag
> Nothing much to say.
Does it mean you agree?
> > 3. Introduction, statement 2: "It consists of a single
> header". It is not
> > true.
> Yes. The reason of this error is that only one header is needed to be
> included in order to access the major part of the library.
It still would be better to rephrase it.
> > 4. Introduction, statement 3: "Traits is a policy".
> Yes, you are right. And it's reason why we speak of
> "policies" and not of
> "traits" in the documentation. However, as you may know, this
> library was
> originally the work of Jens Maurer, and by respect to that
> work, we tried
> to limit the number of naming changes to a minimum.
IMO it is *very* important to use proper terminology. When I see template
parameter named traits I am confused.
> Some concept checking would be nice. But I'm not sure it would be that
> useful (am I underestimating the strength of concept checking
> in the case
> of interval arithmetic?)
I think it could be useful.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk