Steven Watanabe wrote:
AMDG
Matthias Schabel <boost <at> schabel-family.org> writes:
Since that time I have made a few changes which make it trivial to switch to mpl::plus etc. I agree that that would be a good thing. It would be good, but, ultimately, this is an implementation detail that should have no impact on the library's end users...probably not something that needs to be a top priority...
Aren't users allowed to manipulate dimension lists directly?
Exactly. One would expect it to follow conventions. Also see the static_rational, which I think needs its own review and be added to the math library.
I would rather not make the code totally incomprehensible unless there is a very clear and compelling reason to. It takes less than 30 seconds for me to recompile all 22 example programs on my machine, which is quite acceptable...
Exactly my conclusion.
I did not time it but I did compare it relative to both my own home brewed quantity class and to doubles. Our software can take a long time to compile already and this particular implementation was at least 10x as slow to compile as doubles. This could have significant impact on its utility as well; it might be entirely impractical to use in very large projects that do a lot of computations.