"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote ...
"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
[snip]
OK I have started on boost::mpl::rational_c. I have derived from that into boost::mpl::integral_rational_c.
I can't imagine what that would mean or why that would be needed. A rational number is by definition both:
a. Not integral b. A ratio of integers.
That was a bait.;-) OK to hack Alexey Gurtovoys rational_c ? This message has been recorded etc.
In implementing that I need some promotion...so may try Fernando
Cacciolas
converter. OTOH Alexey Gurtovoys types_promotion_traits if all needs to be mpl.
I think you want Joel de Guzman's technology. You might search the message archives for his postings about it.
OK I need this in the library...btw so does mpl impl ! too much ad-hoc stuff for my likeing :-) [snip]
From there I go to int_rational, long_rational etc I prefer int_rat but.... ok forget it :-)
Overkill, IMO, but it's your party.
I'll make sure I go to bed early . :-)
Finally can use that to implement simple pow,root reciprocal etc. Should I do reciprocal<integral_c> --> integral_rational_c or is that a user thing?
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
sorted by your previous reply.
MPL metafunctions only deal in types (which may be wrappers for numbers). That simplifies everything a lot.
I'm going for naming members xx_value and xx_type. Any good ?... whats (rolling up my trouser leg) *traditional*. [snip]
Are there some written guidelines on these conventions or am I just meant to 'know' them? hmm..I seem to remember asking this before :-)
Just look back a little bit in the thread to Daniel Wallin's posting and I think you'll find the answer you seek.
This ? : " This is not the "traditional" use of trailing underscores. Normally they are used for keywords. int -> int_ bool -> bool_ etc. MPL uses tons of names that clashes with names in std. This is a problem for the user, not the library. -- Daniel Wallin " Cant see the reference or the link to written guidelines ...? I do see ... "Dont worry about the user" though ! hmm ...Ok to use the _t suffix then ..."traditional" way to represent a typedef . Started in the 70's I think ;-) BTW I declined joining the freemasons ...I prefer things to be open to everybody. BUT .......... mpl rocks! .......................... :-) regards Andy Little