Re: [boost] library maintainer list

Subject: Re: [boost] library maintainer list
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-12-24 18:51:17

On 12/24/17 10:30 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2017, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
>> On 12/23/17 11:59 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>> (what about making this constexpr?).
>>> That's going to be hard, unless you are happy with making only 
>>> trivial things (construct, copy) constexpr
>> How come?
> How do you control the rounding mode at compile time?
Hmmm - I don't see anything special about rounding mode that would 
prevent it from being constexpr.  The same sort of question could be 
raised about lots of aspects of this or any other library.  One can't 
really answer any of these questions until undertaking the task.  All or 
most of the functions depend solely upon their parameters and have not 
side effects.  But, in my recent experience, functions of this sort can 
generally be made to support constexpr.

I'm sure there are functions for which supporting constexpr wouldn't be 
worth it.  Transdental functions come to mind.  But I don't think that 
everything would have to be constexpr in order to be useful.

There other things I'd like to see as well - basically template 
parameter checking with BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT and better documentation of 
requirements.

-- 
Robert Ramey
www.rrsd.com
[phone]