Shouldn't the return type be integral, though? And long long (or int64) for double? Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: John Maddock <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:16:03 To:boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [Math/nextafter] A question of naming functions... Paul A Bristow wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Hervé Brönnimann Sent: 30 April 2008 12:20 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [Math/nextafter] A question of naming functions...
floatdistance(lhs, rhs)?
Would adding an underscore be nicer:
FPT float_distance(FPT lhs, FPT rhs);
That's more to the Boost style of things.
And to be clear, this (and the other next functions) *only* apply to floating-point types. (not integer, not decimal, not interval, or any other type)?
AS far as the current implementation is concerned it's strictly limited to floating point values, represented in base 2. John. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost