Subject: Re: [boost] [constrained_value] Constrained Value review results
From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-14 03:53:39
Den 14-09-2010 09:41, Gordon Woodhull skrev:
>> As for the floating point problems, then I have not read any subsequent threads on this. My recollection was that we did solve the problem during the discussion (was it using<= and>= exclusively and always truncating the bound to 64 bits?).
> There's an interesting thread on floating point FUD which I linked to.
> Yes, I think that was the agreed solution. Efficiency be damned for an obsolescent architecture. It is interesting to see that numeric::interval came to the same conclusion about round-tripping the bounds to memory. Their bounds are also closed, included. Those guys could have set us straight a lot quicker, but it's nice to see convergent evolution.
For many bounds we don't have to worry about round trips to memory. We
have people producing 64bit math constants which can just be used
directly, and which would satisfy most use cases IMO.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk