From: Janek Kozicki (janek_listy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-17 19:33:02
Leland Brown said: (by the date of Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:33:06 -0700 (PDT))
> --- Michael Fawcett <michael.fawcett_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > I was under the impression that the vector<3,
> > free_quantity> syntax was just one alternative to
> > the lengthier one,
> That was my understanding too. I see no reason to
> preclude the type parameter from being free_quantity,
> and this would automatically allow mixed vectors - and
> automatically ensure they're only used in ways that
> make sense.
I have read you whole post, and I totally agree (it was an interesting
example too!). I think there was a misunderstanding.
The problem is about underlying data type. Do we allow one field of a
vector<3> to be double, another field to be int, and another field to be
Please see my direct reply to Michael, titled
"Re: [boost] [PQS] free_quantity contra int,double and Boost.Rational"
-- Janek Kozicki |
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk