"Cromwell Enage" wrote
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.
Yeah Right.................... ;-) 'name' which is "rational" in class template "rational" is an alias in class scope for 'name'<input_parameters>. What this is really about is potatoes and potatoes. So it is reliant on input parameters. I am arguing for a normalised version, so for my_rational<2,8>, my_rational<3,12> and my_rational<5,20> among others, the normalised version is my_rational<1,4> and thats what I think rational<...>::type should return.
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.
Just because rational does it doesnt mean its not daft... ;-) Does anybody **seriously** use that feature of Boost.Rational?
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.
Mpl. Math seems to be getting quite popular.... ;-) cheers Andy little