"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
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.
Why should that normalization be done eagerly? I can see no good reason for it.
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... ;-)
Is it daft to want my_rational<x,1> to be a conforming MPL integral constant? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com