[boost] Re: Advanced match constants scheme

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-22 06:24:25

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:50:32 +0200 (CEST), Guillaume Melquiond
<gmelquio_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>We are sure c_l is the nearest 'long double'. Now we want the nearest
>'double'. Can we simply do:
>
>double c_d() { return c_l(); }
>
>No, we can't.

We already agreed that a different definition must be provided for
each type (float, double, long double, and possibly UDTs in some of
the proposed approaches). Is this the only objection? I haven't
analyzed the rest of the post because this could be a crucial
misunderstanding (I've read everything, only a little more
absent-mindedly).

Genny.