--- On Thu, 11/13/08, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
The latest WP is N2798. See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2798.pdf
Got it.
I just noticed section 20.3, called "compile-time rational arithmetic", and I'm wondering how stable that specification is.
20.3 in N2798 is very stable, since except for the diff markup it is the same as the Committee Draft that is currently being reviewed by national bodies, and there are no outstanding issues in the LWG active issues list.
Hmmm. I see that the ratio class template is neither required nor implemented as a nullary metafunction, as std::integral_constant is. (There is no "typedef ratio<N,D> type;" statement.) Is there any particular reason? I ask because this may cause problems if I try to have the ratio interact with other MPL metafunctions.
I'm also wondering whether or not anyone else has been working on an implementation.
See the <boost/ratio.hpp> header that is part of the Chrono library added to the sandbox yesterday.
Checkout http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/chrono with Subversion.
Got it.
In the meantime, my questions are: * Should I resume work on MPL.Math? Should I make a different branch, still part of MPL? Or should I fork a separate Boost project altogether? * If I resume work, should I make the implementation more standards-conformant?
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the MPL.Math work you are referring to.
My bad, I should have clarified. It's a generalized compile-time math library, available from the BoostPro Computing Vault, inside the Template Metaprogramming folder. It needs documentation, though.
Perhaps look at the Chrono <boost/ratio.hpp> header and see if it affects your thinking.
Okay, the last two options are out. :) I'll see what I can do about getting MPL.Math to play nice with boost::ratio, but as I said before, that missing type definition may cause problems. Cheers, Cromwell D. Enage