Re: [Boost-users] [math][tools][units] generic libraries notgenericenough

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [math][tools][units] generic libraries notgenericenough
From: Michael Fawcett (michael.fawcett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-27 21:03:55

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 7:02 AM, John Maddock <boost.regex_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> It's not that they're "not generic enough", it's that they use different
> concepts for their number types, Boost.Math has a well defined concept that
> all number types must obey:
> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/libs/math/doc/sf_and_dist/html/math_toolkit/using_udt/concepts.html.
> It also has concept checking programs and concept archetypes to verify that
> our code really does stick to the stated concept requirements and no more:
> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/libs/math/doc/sf_and_dist/html/math_toolkit/using_udt/archetypes.html

Could the entire ResultType column be done away with, being replaced
everywhere in code with "auto"?  In other words, the Concept we are
looking for is that the type supports the operation, but we don't
necessarily care about the result type except that it also supports
the subsequent operations required.

--Michael Fawcett