Subject: Re: [boost] [review][constrained_value] Review of Constrained Value Library begins today
From: Johan Råde (rade_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-10 07:24:05
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> John Maddock gave two examples: one where we accapted wrong values and
> one where we rejected correct values. I found the latter somewhat better
> (because the invariant of bounded_float would be preserved), and if we
> are able to get that behavior consistently, I would be quite happy.
> So maybe most of our problems will be fixed by using >= and <= instead
> of < and >?
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Is the following true: if x and y satisfy x <= y (or x >= y)
then they will still do so after any truncation from 80 to 64 bits?
Then, as Thorsten suggests, <= and >= will never erroneously accept any value.
We could then maybe implement < and > using <=, >= and the std::nextafter function,
and achieve the same guarantee there.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk