Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [rational] Can the community maintenance team and/or rational users please review some pull requests?
From: Marc Glisse (marc.glisse_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-30 13:16:17

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, John Maddock wrote:

> I have a bunch of PR's against Rational, which of course is basically
> unmaintained. I'd be grateful if a second pair of eyes (at least) could take
> a look before I start agitating for someone to merge them ;)
> Each of the four, builds on the previous one(s).
> Three are basically trivial:
> The final one is much more complex, and disables "accidental" conversion from
> float to rational (which otherwise proceeds via truncation to integer first).
> As you can see from the commit history, I've had quite a few attempts at
> getting the final one correct. I believe it is now, doesn't break anything
> in Boost except, as noted in the discussion, Boost.Geometry, which relies on
> an unsafe float to rational conversion - Geometry's authors are aware of the
> issue here:
> So.... I'm interested in both eyeball-look-throughs from seasoned Boosters,
> but also feedback from Rational's users, and verification that it doesn't
> break end user code - other than unsafe conversions of course. If you just
> want the updated header to test, you can grab it from here:

If I understand correctly, cpp_rational is constructible from double but
rational isn't? It is documented, so it's ok, but it may still confuse
some users.

(I have never used either, but I use some alternatives, and I am planning
to use cpp_rational soon, and construction from double is necessary for my
use (hence ticket 10082, thanks again for fixing that so quickly))

Marc Glisse

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at