Re: [boost] GSOC 2013

Subject: Re: [boost] GSOC 2013
From: Dmitriy Gorbel (dmitriycpp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-24 17:59:29

Michael, thanks for the links.
As for me, this page also has interesting info(and this page 
give me idea to provide math functions). 
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/37636/Fixed-Point-Class

Vicente Botet wrote
> As I said there are several notations and there is no real one that
> would make happy everyone. So I think that the library should take in
> account this point and provide some aliases (c++11)/type traits(c++98)
> for the most common notations.
> 
> Choosing the default notation is critical and having a consensus on it
> would be difficult. Do you think that it is worth proposing several
> default notations and request the boost community to choose the default
> one? 

Yes, of course,  boost community should choose the default notation.

What is the best way to provide several notations?

That is less important issue, but I have question about the file structure.
In the prototype all code in one file. But I think file structure may look
like this:
fixed_point.hpp - top level header
    fixed_point/cardinal.hpp
    fixed_point/integral.hpp
    fixed_point/nonnegative.hpp
    fixed_point/negatable.hpp
    fixed_point/functions.hpp
    fixed_point/common.hpp
    fixed_point/config.hpp

I do not insist, but I think segregation better than one file,
and want to know your opinion.

P.S. The proposal.
proposal_Dmitriy_Gorbel.pdf
<http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/file/n4646027/proposal_Dmitriy_Gorbel.pdf>  
I think this is final version, or close to final.

Sincerely,
Dmitriy. 

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/GSOC-2013-tp4645089p4646027.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.