Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Are these types suitable as numerictypes for unit tests?
From: Christopher Kormanyos (e_float_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-09 05:52:17

• Next message: John Maddock: "Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Are these types suitable asnumerictypes for unit tests?"
• Previous message: John Reid: "Re: [boost] boost.range bug in transformed or sliced"
• In reply to: John Maddock: "Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Are these types suitable as numerictypes for unit tests?"
• Next in thread: John Maddock: "Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Are these types suitable asnumerictypes for unit tests?"
• Reply: John Maddock: "Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Are these types suitable asnumerictypes for unit tests?"
• Reply: Richard: "Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Are these types suitable as numerictypes for unit tests?"
• Reply: Richard: "Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Are these types suitable as numerictypes for unit tests?"

• Next message: John Maddock: "Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Are these types suitable asnumerictypes for unit tests?"
• Previous message: John Reid: "Re: [boost] boost.range bug in transformed or sliced"
• In reply to: John Maddock: "Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Are these types suitable as numerictypes for unit tests?"
• Next in thread: John Maddock: "Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Are these types suitable asnumerictypes for unit tests?"
• Reply: John Maddock: "Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Are these types suitable asnumerictypes for unit tests?"
• Reply: Richard: "Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Are these types suitable as numerictypes for unit tests?"
• Reply: Richard: "Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Are these types suitable as numerictypes for unit tests?"

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk