Boost logo

Boost :

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.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at