Hi Matt,
the ccmath functions must/could only work with std types. Is this assumption correct?
If true:
Wouldn't it make sense to do such a check for CT? This way errors can be detected early and it generally simplifies error handling.
namespace boost::math::ccmath
{
namespace detail
{
template <typename type>
inline constexpr auto foo_impl(const Type x) noexcept { return x; }
} // detail
template <typename Type>
constexpr auto foo(const Type x) noexcept
{
BOOST_IF_CONSTEXPR (std::is_arithmetic_v<Type>)
{
if (BOOST_MATH_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED(x))
{
BOOST_IF_CONSTEXPR (std::is_integral_v<Type>)
{
return detail::foo_impl(double(x));
}
else
{
return detail::foo_impl(x);
}
}
else
{
using ::std::foo;
return foo(x);
}
}
else
{
static_assert(boost::dependent_false_v<Type>, "foo is not supported with this type or platform");
return 0;
}
}
} // boost::math::ccmath
1) In particular, this approach is useful for functions that require BOOST_MATH_BIT_CAST in their implementation. To be honest, I don't like your implementations of signbit/copysign (buggy) - I'll write you something more on that.
2) The idiom "always false" (dependent_false) guarantees that static_assert is only used for Type!=is_arithmetic.
cu
Gero
