"David Abrahams" wrote
"Andy Little" writes:
I don't see what the presence of numerator and denominator has to do with normalization.
They should be typedefs for the input parameters?
Hmm, is that meant to be a question?
As it stands in both my and Cromwells version the numerator and denominator are those of the (so-called) normalized version. This was carried over from the runtime version by Matthias Schabel in his original compile-time rational. IOW to the compile time rational veterans thats how its always been and we thought it worked fine. The rationale is that rational is primarily a math entity, whereas integral can be used as an id and for counting, iterating etc. So the question is do you think they should rather be typedefs for the input parameters?
What does that have to do with normalization?
Are you referring to my use of the word 'normalisation'
Yes.
to mean making my_rational<2,8>::type == my_rational<1,4>? Maybe the use of the word normalisation here is not correct. Is that the problem?
No. Please take me literally. I don't see any relationship between whether we provide numerator/denominator member typedefs and normalisation (or normalization).
As it stands these two typedefs are normalized versions of the Numerator and Denominator parameters. [cut]
Its difficult to know what you mean. Do you mean something like:
template < typename Numerator, typename Denominator
where Denominator == One struct my_rational : Numerator {/*...*/};
Yes, something like that. Maybe a silly idea, but not insane.
I experimented with the integral / rational relationship. My view is that it is unwise to couple the two together too closely. One example is in division. divides<int<1>,int<2> > isnt the same as divides<int_<1>, rational<2,1> >, That can only be enforced if there is no hidden conversion from rational to integral. regards Andy Little