From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-06 17:24:01
At Saturday 2004-11-06 10:11, you wrote:
>| -----Original Message-----
>| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
>| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Deane Yang
>| Sent: 05 November 2004 16:02
>| To: boost_at_[hidden]
>| Subject: [boost] Re: Math functions - requirements 'spec'
>| Hubert Holin wrote:
>| > I must say I *strongly* disagree with having code with is C
>| > compatible, mainly because this will greatly hamper
>| genericity (or at
>| > least convenient and safe parametrisation of code).
>| > Even if the code turns up only feasible for, say, float and
>| > double, I strongly believe it should be templated upon the floating
>| > type, with specializations if need be. The C library in C++
>| > approach is just plain wrong, IMHO.
>| I completely agree with this. It makes no sense to have a C++ library
>| that does not use the full strength of the language.
>This view has already been expressed several times
>- but we have to face the fact that
>C99 and Walter Brown's functions are already in TR-1 to achieve C
>I consider it essential to follow their example.
F*** C comparability!!! (I gotta go make that bumper sticker suCks
(with the C in a different color))
the language should have died a decade ago.
In case anyone else doesn't get it, C++ is simply a better
language. Staying tied to a dinosaur is foolish.
>(Perhaps you should check PJP's reasoning on this).
>So, despite that fact that I agree with you, I feel we must be pragmatic
>and face the facts.
>If I don't get agreement on this before I start, there is no point in
>as the code will be rejected on review.
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"