Re: [boost] [MPL.Math] semantics of integral_part and fractional_part metafunctions

4 Nov 2005


      Cromwell Enage wrote:
...
--- Manfred Doudar wrote:
[snip]
...
but I can only think that its going to be cause for
error.
No, the difference between our definitions of
integral_part and fractional_part will be the cause
for error.
It turns out that Mathematica
<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/> agrees with you, so
I'll go ahead and change the metafunction semantics.
That's comforting - there's little here that gets changed
without sustained discourse - and I thankyou for taking the
initiative; but hope I didn't step on any toes.


Cheers,
-- 
Manfred Doudar
MetOcean Engineers
www.metoceanengineers.com