From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-23 18:01:26
Cromwell Enage writes:
> A while back it was mentioned that
> boost::mpl::rational_c and boost::mpl::fixed_c needed
> Before I attempt to tackle this task anymore than I
> already have, I should have some questions answered.
> 1. For those compilers for which BOOST_NO_LIMITS is
> defined, I've learned that there is no way to include
> a floating-point number in an integral constant
As Dave already replied, BOOST_NO_LIMITS has no bearing on it;
it's simply not allowed.
> Does this mean that no matter how I define fixed_c::value, I
> cannot pass fixed_c as a template argument to a metafunction
> that ordinarily takes integral_c as input?
Yep, that's what it means.
> Do I have to duplicate the functionality as a result?
Well, it's not really _duplicating_ of functionality; you have
to implement the same set of primitives for a different
> If so, what should be the
> naming convention for these new metafunctions?
I assume we are talking about arithmetic metafunctions in particular.
Well, the ideal solution is outlined in
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/5668/, but for
the purpose of implementing the functionality itself I suggest you
abstract from all these complications and simply name these as
you wish, e.g. 'fp_plus', 'fp_minus', etc., or anything along these
> 2. Should I define fixed_c in terms of rational_c, to
> reduce the amount of functionality I may need to
> duplicate? Something like this:
> template <typename IntType, IntType N,
> IntType PowerOf10>
> struct fixed_c
> typedef rational_c<IntType,...,...>
If it gives us a satisfactionary range of representable values, sure.
> 3. Eventually the compile-time rational-number
> representation will need to be converted to a runtime
> floating-point value. Should I define this conversion
> function within rational_c (which means an additional
> template parameter, with either function or class
> scope, defining the return value type), within a
> wrapper struct, or somewhere else? And how?
Within the wrapper struct, in form of a conversion operator, so we
can write something like
typedef float_<2,718281828> e;
std::cout << e;
> 4. I only have to deal with rational numbers, right?
> I don't have to worry about accurately representing a
> transcendental number or a complex-number expression?
As long as rational number representation gives us enough domain
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk