"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
"David Abrahams" wrote
"Andy Little" writes:
I don't see what the presence of numerator and denominator has to do with normalization.
They should be typedefs for the input parameters?
What does that have to do with normalization?
Is it daft to want my_rational<x,1> to be a conforming MPL integral constant?
Who wants special cases?
Who suggested a special case?
Whoever said , " Is it daft to want my_rational<x,1> to be a conforming MPL integral constant?" .
That doesn't require any special case code.
integral constant can be converted to a rational constant, but not necessarily the other way.
Don't forget that the types are all known at compile-time. The usual runtime logic doesn't necessarily apply. A conversion from my_rational<x,1> to int_<x> is not a narrowing conversion.
Conversion is fine. Thats not what you said above.
No, it's not what I said above. Remember, the usual runtime logic doesn't necessarily apply. my_rational<x,1> can be an integral constant *at compile time*. I'm not sure it's useful, but it's not insane. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com