Re: [boost] [Math/nextafter] A question of naming functions...

From: hervebronnimann_at_[hidden]
Date: 2008-04-30 08:53:15

Shouldn't the return type be integral, though?  And long long (or int64) for double?

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]>

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:16:03 
To:boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] [Math/nextafter] A question of naming functions...


Paul A Bristow wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
>> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Hervé Brönnimann
>> Sent: 30 April 2008 12:20
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [boost] [Math/nextafter] A question of naming
>> functions...
>>
>> floatdistance(lhs, rhs)?
>
> Would adding an underscore be nicer:
>
> FPT float_distance(FPT lhs, FPT rhs);

That's more to the Boost style of things.

> And to be clear, this (and the other next functions) *only* apply to
> floating-point types.  (not integer, not decimal, not interval,
> or any other type)?

AS far as the current implementation is concerned it's strictly limited to 
floating point values, represented in base 2.

John. 

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost