From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-26 08:34:35
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> Ross Boylan wrote:
>>> "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> Several months ago I became the official maintainer of
>>>> Boost.Rational, and am just now getting around to considering
>>>> proposed modifications to the library.
>>>> I would like to know:
>>>> 1. Do people use Boost.Rational, and if so, what is it used for,
>>>> and with what template parameters?
>>> type (if I can find one) as the template parameter.
>> I use rational<int> in a scientific application. It's specifying a
>> step size, and I wanted to avoid situations where, e.g., someone gave
>> a step of 1/3 and didn't get exactly 3 steps from 0 to 1.
>> I'm happy with it as is.
> This is good to know.
> I'm definitely committed to keeping the current behavior available as
> an option. I'm also strongly inclined to make sure it is the default
> behavior, now that I have verified that the template is indeed used
> Andras's proposal to add optional rounding or error checking seems
> reasonable, but I can't really justify adopting it if there is only
> one interested user.
My vote is that the default (and only) behavior should be to do the right
thing, which in this case means adopting Andras's proposal in its original
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk