"David Abrahams" wrote
"Andy Little" 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?
Are you referring to my use of the word 'normalisation' to mean making my_rational<2,8>::type == my_rational<1,4>? Maybe the use of the word normalisation here is not correct. Is that the problem? [cut]
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.
At least in terms of the value and value_type members it does: http://www.boost.org/libs/mpl/doc/refmanual/integral-constant.html [cut]
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.
Its difficult to know what you mean. Do you mean something like: template < typename Numerator, typename Denominator
where Denominator == One struct my_rational : Numerator {/*...*/}; ( forgetting for a moment the other cases ) regards Andy Little