From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-22 18:31:59
"Cromwell Enage" wrote
> Actually, the only thing
> BOOST_MPL_AUX_SELF_TYPEDEF(name) does is expand to
> typedef name type;
> typedef struct name type;
> depending on whether a particular non-conforming
> compiler needs the second statement. No reliance on
> input parameters, AFAICT.
Yeah Right.................... ;-)
'name' which is "rational" in class template "rational" is an alias in class
scope for 'name'<input_parameters>. What this is really about is potatoes and
potatoes. So it is reliant on input parameters.
I am arguing for a normalised version, so for my_rational<2,8>,
my_rational<3,12> and my_rational<5,20> among others, the normalised version
is my_rational<1,4> and thats what I think rational<...>::type should return.
>> Secondly, are the next and prior members necessary?
>> IMO they only make sense for integers.
> They are provided for consistency with
> Boost::Rational, which implements increment and
> decrement operators.
Just because rational does it doesnt mean its not daft... ;-)
Does anybody **seriously** use that feature of Boost.Rational?
>> Thirdly, It should be noted that there is a
>> header, but as rational_c is defined in
>> <boost/mpl/math/rational.hpp> I think
>> its now both redundant and confusing.
> The first file was around long before I even took an
> interest in MPL. If and when MPL.Math is merged into
> Boost, we'll ask Aleksey to remove the old file.
Mpl. Math seems to be getting quite popular.... ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk