From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-06 12:11:13
| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Deane Yang
| Sent: 05 November 2004 16:02
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| 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.
(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