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

From: Manfred Doudar (manfred.doudar_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-04 05:43:37

Cromwell Enage wrote:

>--- Manfred Doudar wrote:
>  
>
> [snip]
>
>>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.
>  
>

That's comforting - there's little here that gets changed
without sustained discourse - and I thankyou for taking the
initiative; but hope I didn't step on any toes.

Cheers,
-- 
Manfred Doudar
MetOcean Engineers
www.metoceanengineers.com