Hi Jesse, > From: jesseperla > The only other things that I would say need to be thought through in the design is unions of constraints instead of just intersections of them. For example, I was checking this out a while back, and it manages the sets of intervals/etc. well: http://www.herold-faulhaber.de/itl/ Well, maybe in the future. This should be relatively easy to add as extension to the library, but may require some time to define the requirements and interface well. > Why not just use numeric_limits<risk_aversion::value_type>? 1) Because I was too stupid to think of that, and 2) Because I want to be able to write generic functions such as: template<typename T> bool is_NaN(T& t) { return (t == std::numeric_limits< T >::quiet_NaN()); } Then you may specialise those functions for constrained -- I think it's a better solution than providing numeric_limits for constrained in the library. >Actually, only the mutating operators (++, --, =, += etc.) are overloaded. For >I don't think this is needed. If you write: > constrained<int> x, y, z; > z = x + y; >Then simply the + operator for int is used. Even better. As long as it works for all of the auto conversions between intrinsic types we are also in business. e.g. constrained<int> x, y, z; double c; z = c * x + y; Yup, should work. Best regards, Robert