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
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk