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

From: Simon Buchan (simon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-25 22:01:59

David Abrahams wrote:
> "Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> writes:
<snip>
>>>> integral constant can be converted to a
>>>> rational constant, but not necessarily the other way.
>>> Don't forget that the types are all known at compile-time.  The usual
>>> runtime logic doesn't necessarily apply.  A conversion from
>>> my_rational<x,1> to int_<x> is not a narrowing conversion.
>> 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.
> 
If you for some reason still think this, why not eagerly evaluate
        template<typename Num>
        rational<Num,1>
to Num, since we are already eagerly normalising?

-- 
don't quote this