Subject: Re: [boost] [math] common_factor template parameters
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-27 12:17:33
>>>static_gcc and static_lcm have unsigned long parameters.
>>>
>>>template < unsigned long Value1, unsigned long Value2 >
>>>struct boost::math::static_gcd;
>>>
>>>Could these be changed to uintmax_t?
>>
>> I would think so yes.
>
> Do you need I make a ticket?
Well... it might prevent me from forgetting! ;-)
> Murillo, a GSOC student, is working on some metafunctions for integers
> including between others abs and sign.
> What do you think about a MPL integral constant metafunction having as
> parameters integral constant types on top of static_lcm?
>
> namespace XXX {
>
> template <typename ICT1, typename ICT2>
> lcm : mpl::integral_c<uintmax_t,
> static_lcm<
> XXX::abs<ICT1>::value,
> XXX::abs<ICT1>::value
> >
> > {};
> }
>
> Should these metafunctions be added to the 'mpl' namespace? if not what
> could be the a good name for XXX?
No idea, but they look like mpl metafunctions. I guess if the mpl guys
don't want them then Boost.Math could host them, it's really a question of
where users are mostly likely to go looking for them. I'm not sure what the
answer to is though...
John.