Re: [boost] more thoughts on c2_functions

From: Neal Becker (ndbecker2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-26 13:37:11

Marcus Mendenhall wrote:

> I have started trying to templatize c2_functions, but I have a
> question for the Boost group.  Realistically, this class is fairly
> meaningless for anything other than double and long double types.  I
> also have a long, enduring distaste for c++ templates and, as a
> result, little deep competence with them.  The process of making it
> into working template classes which are also fairly easy to use will
> be very slow for me.  For the 99% of users who will always use this
> with double, also, the need to declare every items with <double>
> after it, or even with <> for things which can be defaulted, is ugly
> and will likely reduce the user base.
> 
> Would it be objectionable to the Boost concept to release a basic
> version of the which is strictly for doubles, with the knowledge
> that, for the few people who want it for long doubles, this can be
> done with a global search & substitute, and then to plan later for a
> successor to this which is fully templatized?
> 
> I see this as a package which, in its current, template-free form,
> can be essentially spun off except for improving the documentation.
> The algorithms in it are simple and robust, and the code should be
> highly portable, so I doubt it will every need much maintenance.  I
> think there is a fairly decent reason to make it available soon,
> since there appears to be a significant need for it, and to learn if
> real users need it structured differently.
> 

You've come to the right place.  Here are the template experts.  Instead of
"release" without template support, why not collaborate with someone to
help with the process?

** It's not just the data types that you would want to be generic.  It's the
containter types as well.  There are hard-coded instances of std::vector,
for example.  From what I've seen in this code, fixing this aspect is easy.