I currently vote neither yes nor no. I just need to get a better understanding of what is intended to be included into boost from the files provided.
On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:21:08 +0200, Paul A Bristow wrote: > but I hope the review can concentrate on what emerged previously as the > _really_ tricky issue of how to _present_ the values in C++, I looked at the files and I think that they need some clean ups. Also, I don't really see the concept behind it. How are the values presented and how does your way compare to other options? (Well, I basically can fiure out the first part, but without the second, I can't really understand it). Maybe you can provide some links to the key messages of the discussion that lead to it or give us a short summary. Another point I am missing is a way to extend the constants for user-defined types. Something like numeric_limits<> comes to mind. I think that this is a must-have feature as people that write applications that need lots of these constants are likely also using types with higher precision that the standard types provided by the language. Without a way to teach the constants-framework the new types, they will create wrappers and thus they won't use the intended boost-/standard-way to access the variables. Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
