From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-01 11:36:18
--- In boost_at_y..., nbecker_at_f... wrote:
> >>>>> "rogeeff" == rogeeff <rogeeff_at_m...> writes:
>
> I haven't checked the code carefully, but my concern is that the '%'
> operator when used with negative args returns either positive or
> negative values, machine dependent. Usually this requires an
explicit
> test or the code won't be correct in both cases. There was no such
> test in this code, so I was suspicious.
I did not know that. But anyway it will work in any case. The only
requirement is that after % |n|<m_cycle_size. But, as Tomass Witt
remarked I should check m_cycle_size != 0.
>
> rogeeff> To Neal Backer:
> rogeeff> I do not see what do we buy making Policy methods
static. Dave could
> I believe the code is more clear. Since the adaptor object is
passed
> as an argument to the unary functions, I find it confusing if the
> argument is not used. In the case of binary functions, the lack of
> symmetry is also confusing. I was under the impression, perhaps
> wrongly, that the policies were really intended to be static, but
were
> not made static only to satisfy some broken compiler.
I prefer to treat it this way: stateless policies implemented using
static function. Statefull policies implemented member functions.
Other that that, as Dave sad, it is religious issue.
Gennadiy.