Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Formal Review: Boost.Ratio
Date: 2010-10-06 03:16:25
"vicente.botet" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> hat am 5. Oktober 2010 um 23:10
> >> - What is your evaluation of the implementation?
> >>Â Â
> > The code looks very clean, except for a few #if 0, which I would rather
> > have removed.
> I guess you are talking of these kind of #if 0
> #if 0
>Â Â Â // The nested typedef typeÂ shall be a synonym for ratio<R1::num *
>R2::den, R2::num * R1::den>::type.
>Â Â Â typedef typename ratio<R1::num * R2::den, R1::den * R2::num>::type type;
> You are right that these kind of comments could be more troubling that
> What do you think about removing the #if 0 and letting the comment as follows?
> // The nested typedef typeÂ is a synonym for ratio<R1::num * R2::den, R2::num
> * R1::den>::type that avoids overflows when possible.Â
This is fine, IMO
> Thanks for helping me fixing warnings and for the many suggestion you did
> concerning the documentation.[...]
> And of course thanks for your positive review.
You're welcome! Thanks for the library :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk