Re: [boost] Formal Review for Interval Library

From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-10 17:48:10

----- Original Message -----
From: "Guillaume.Melquiond" <gmelquio_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review for Interval Library

> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Fernando Cacciola wrote:
>
> > Great!!
> > Where can I get the update code from?
>
> Sorry, it isn't available for the moment. As I explained, we don't use
> Windows computers, so it is always a bit painful to test new
> modifications. And since it's already very late here, I won't do it now.
>
Don't worry then.

> However, if you really want to test it, just comment out the problematic
> lines :-). Indeed, they are not really important if you just want to have
> a shot at the library. The problems are the bodies of the constructor
> (which test for exceptional cases; I really don't understand why the
> compiler isn't happy); and BCC seems to lack a 'rint' function.
>
OK, I'll do this.

btw: BCC doesn't have any of the C99 rounding functions, like rint.

> > Hmmm.
> > I'm confused.
> > Is there any reason why the policy don't have to handle sqrt_down/up(0)?
> > What does it mean that it 'don't have to handle'? Should I expect:
> > sqrt_up(0)==-3.14? Or that it throws?
>
> Not at all. It's just that 'sqrt_something' will never be called with an
> argument equal to 0. It will only be called with a strictly positive
> argument. So, when the argument is 0, even if you return -3.14 or throw an
> exception or destroy the universe, it won't change the behavior of
> 'sqrt(interval)'.
>
OK then.

Regards,

Fernando Cacciola
Sierra s.r.l.
fcacciola_at_[hidden]
www.gosierra.com