From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-22 10:32:22
In the definition for mpl::math::rational would it not be better to make the
nested type member using the numerator and denominator rather than the input
typedef rational<integral_c_<int,2>,integral_c<int,8> >::type type;
currently type is a
in the second case type is a
I believe the second is superior. Can supply a patch if you like ...
Secondly, are the next and prior members necessary? IMO they only make sense for
Thirdly, It should be noted that there is a <boost/mpl/math/rational_c.hpp>
header, but as rational_c is defined in <boost/mpl/math/rational.hpp> I think
its now both redundant and confusing.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk