[boost] Re: Re: Math functions - requirements 'spec'

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-07 06:08:27

"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:6.1.2.0.2.20041106152208.048c5c70_at_mail.rudbek.com...
| At Saturday 2004-11-06 10:11, you wrote:

| >| 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++
| >| clothing
| >| > 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
| >compatibility.
| >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.

It might be worth looking at what  benefits we can get out of a templated
version.

Would it for example, be possible to use the code with a big_floats class?

At any rate, wouldn't it be possible to have a genuine C++ version with
exceptions and all and then
provide simple wrappers for C compatibility:

extern "C"
{
    void foo( ... );
}

?

-Thorsten