Re: [boost] [mpl::math Rational] type member

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-23 07:37:20

"Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

Why should that normalization be done eagerly?  I can see no good
reason for it.

>>> 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... ;-)

Is it daft to want my_rational<x,1> to be a conforming MPL integral
constant?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com