--- Andy Little wrote:
Hi Cromwell,
Hey, Andy.
in <boost/mpl/math/rational.hpp>
In the definition for mpl::math::rational would it not be better to make the nested type member using the numerator and denominator rather than the input parameters.eg for:
typedef rational<integral_c_<int,2>,integral_c<int,8>
::type type;
currently type is a
rational<integral_c_<int,2>,integral_c<int,8> >
Actually, the only thing BOOST_MPL_AUX_SELF_TYPEDEF(name) does is expand to typedef name type; or typedef struct name type; depending on whether a particular non-conforming compiler needs the second statement. No reliance on input parameters, AFAICT.
Secondly, are the next and prior members necessary? IMO they only make sense for integers.
They are provided for consistency with Boost::Rational, which implements increment and decrement operators.
Thirdly, It should be noted that there is a <boost/mpl/math/rational_c.hpp> header, but as rational_c is defined in <boost/mpl/math/rational.hpp> I think its now both redundant and confusing.
The first file was around long before I even took an interest in MPL. If and when MPL.Math is merged into Boost, we'll ask Aleksey to remove the old file. Cromwell D. Enage __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com