
Boost : 
From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 20051024 04:08:30
"David Abrahams" wrote
> "Andy Little" writes:
>
>> "David Abrahams" wrote
>>> "Andy Little" writes:
>>
>>> I don't see what the presence of numerator and denominator has to do
>>> with normalization.
>>
>> They should be typedefs for the input parameters?
>
> What does that have to do with normalization?
Are you referring to my use of the word 'normalisation' to mean making
my_rational<2,8>::type == my_rational<1,4>? Maybe the use of the word
normalisation here is not correct. Is that the problem?
[cut]
>>> Who suggested a special case?
>>
>> Whoever said , " Is it daft to want my_rational<x,1> to be a
>> conforming MPL integral constant?" .
>
> That doesn't require any special case code.
At least in terms of the value and value_type members it does:
http://www.boost.org/libs/mpl/doc/refmanual/integralconstant.html
[cut]
>> Conversion is fine. Thats not what you said above.
>
> No, it's not what I said above. Remember, the usual runtime logic
> doesn't necessarily apply. my_rational<x,1> can be an integral
> constant *at compile time*. I'm not sure it's useful, but it's not
> insane.
Its difficult to know what you mean.
Do you mean something like:
template <
typename Numerator,
typename Denominator
>
where Denominator == One
struct my_rational : Numerator {/*...*/};
( forgetting for a moment the other cases )
regards
Andy Little
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk