Re: [boost] Formal Review for Interval Library (was:IntervalLibraryreminder)

From: Joerg Walter (jhr.walter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-08 01:30:01

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review for Interval Library
(was:IntervalLibraryreminder)

> jhr.walter_at_[hidden] (Joerg Walter) writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | Ok. To demonstrate the consequences for basic linear algebra, I wrote a
> | small sample:
>
> [...]
>
> | Especially unpleasant is, that the temporary vectors, which were
previously
> | eliminated through expression templates, resurrect. Sorry, I'm not happy
> | with this.
>
> Well, happy or not one has to cope with one thing or the other.
> A complaint I regularly see reported on the GCC list is GCC's
> inconsistent use of mixed precision on x86 plateforms.

But wouldn't help an implementation like

template<class T1, class T2>
typename promote_traits<T1, T2>::result_type operator+(const T1 &t1, const
T2 &t2) {
  typedef  typename promote_traits<T1, T2>::result_type  result_type;
  return result_type (t1) + result_type (t2);
}

to prevent such complaints then?

> | > | The only other way I see is, that standard library vendors document
how to
> | > | extend their implementations and boost supports one ore more
different
> | > | extensions then.
> | >
> | > Yeah.
> |
> | Do you already have a concrete idea, how this could work with GCC for
> | example?
>
> Yes, I have ideas. But, I would like concrete uses of the primary
> template std::complex<>

Ok, so we should wait to see what will happen with the interval library.

> and get feedback about which and which
> constraints users find unreasonable.  It is much easier to experiment
> with Boost component than with an implementation of the standard
> library that comes with compilers ;-)

I see.

Regards

Joerg