At Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:12:37 -0500, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Jan 15, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
+1, although I think the name should be boost::ratio rather than boost::ratios
If it has a type called "ratio" in it, "ratios" might be a better choice for the namespace. That, at least, is how tuple did it. I can't find a good rationale for that choice now, but once upon a time it used to be our recommended practice.
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_45_0/libs/tuple/doc/design_decisions_rationa... "For those who are really interested in namespaces"
Interesting. I wonder if those errors they encountered with using are conforming behavior and/or obsolete issues due to compiler fixes. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com