Subject: Re: [boost] Design question SafeFloat
From: Damian Vicino (damian_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-07-28 02:25:00
Thanks for the comment, I started following whats on safe_numerics, but I
feel it gets too complicated to use in the case of floating point where
there is so many policy combinations I want to allow. I got the feeling
something easier can be built to handle this particular case.
However, I'm exploring alternatives, if I cannot find a simple elegant
solution I will go back to similar approach to the one used in
2018-07-27 10:05 GMT-04:00 Robert Ramey via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:
> On 7/26/18 8:25 PM, Damian Vicino via Boost wrote:
>> I'm working in simplifying safe_float to prepare it for future review.
>> For now I'm focusing in a C++17 compatible version.
>> Currently safefloat receives 2 template parameters:
>> template<typename FP, typename P>
>> class safe_float ...
>> Where FP is the floating point value being made "safe", float, double,
>> double ...
>> and P is a Policy of what to check and how to react.
> It might be helpful to look at how safe numerics does it.
> Robert Ramey
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk