At Saturday 2004-11-06 10:11, you wrote:
| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Deane Yang | Sent: 05 November 2004 16:02 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: [boost] Re: Math functions - requirements 'spec' | | Hubert Holin wrote: | > | > I must say I *strongly* disagree with having code with is C | > compatible, mainly because this will greatly hamper | genericity (or at | > least convenient and safe parametrisation of code). | > | > Even if the code turns up only feasible for, say, float and | > double, I strongly believe it should be templated upon the floating | > type, with specializations if need be. The C library in C++ | clothing | > approach is just plain wrong, IMHO. | > | | I completely agree with this. It makes no sense to have a C++ library | that does not use the full strength of the language.
This view has already been expressed several times
- but we have to face the fact that C99 and Walter Brown's functions are already in TR-1 to achieve C compatibility. I consider it essential to follow their example.
F*** C comparability!!! (I gotta go make that bumper sticker suCks (with the C in a different color)) the language should have died a decade ago. In case anyone else doesn't get it, C++ is simply a better language. Staying tied to a dinosaur is foolish.
(Perhaps you should check PJP's reasoning on this).
So, despite that fact that I agree with you, I feel we must be pragmatic and face the facts.
If I don't get agreement on this before I start, there is no point in continuing as the code will be rejected on review.
Paul
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com The five most dangerous words in the English language: "There oughta be a law"