[boost] [MPL.Math] semantics of integral_part and fractional_part metafunctions

From: Cromwell Enage (sponage_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-01 23:28:14

--- Manfred Doubar wrote:
> BUT I would expect that both integer and fractional
> _parts *included* the sign - and I tend to think
> anything else would inevitably lead to confusion.

I set up the current semantics of is_negative,
integral_part, and fractional_part to match the
semantics of the corresponding typedefs in
mixed_number_impl.  BTW, integral_part used to be
called whole_part because it returned whole numbers,
which were were nonnegative.

> I have a good hint of why you might have gone down
> this path,

Now you know exactly why.

> but I can only think that its going to be cause for
> error.

No, the difference between our definitions of
integral_part and fractional_part will be the cause
for error.

It turns out that Mathematica
<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/> agrees with you, so
I'll go ahead and change the metafunction semantics.

                              Cromwell D. Enage

        
                
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com