Subject: Re: [boost] [constrained_value] Constrained Value review results
From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-13 16:24:49
Den 12-09-2010 07:38, Gordon Woodhull skrev:
> Thorsten Ottosen's conditions on acceptance were also numerous, but I believe they were all resolved in debate. Thorsten, please correct me if I am wrong.
As for the member vs. non-members, then I have no strong preference, but
remain convinced that changing state of objects with a non-trivial
invariant is best done by a member function.
As for the floating point problems, then I have not read any subsequent
threads on this. My recolllection was that we did solve the problem
during the discussion (was it using <= and >= exclulsively and always
trucating the bound to 64 bits?).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk