static_gcc and static_lcm have unsigned long parameters.
template < unsigned long Value1, unsigned long Value2 > struct boost::math::static_gcd;
Could these be changed to uintmax_t?
I would think so yes.
Do you need I make a ticket?
Well... it might prevent me from forgetting! ;-)
Murillo, a GSOC student, is working on some metafunctions for integers including between others abs and sign. What do you think about a MPL integral constant metafunction having as parameters integral constant types on top of static_lcm?
namespace XXX {
template <typename ICT1, typename ICT2> lcm : mpl::integral_c<uintmax_t, static_lcm< XXX::abs<ICT1>::value, XXX::abs<ICT1>::value > > {}; }
Should these metafunctions be added to the 'mpl' namespace? if not what could be the a good name for XXX?
No idea, but they look like mpl metafunctions. I guess if the mpl guys don't want them then Boost.Math could host them, it's really a question of where users are mostly likely to go looking for them. I'm not sure what the answer to is though... John.