On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Gennaro Prota wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:50:32 +0200 (CEST), Guillaume Melquiond > wrote: > > >We are sure c_l is the nearest 'long double'. Now we want the nearest > >'double'. Can we simply do: > > > >double c_d() { return c_l(); } > > > >No, we can't. > > We already agreed that a different definition must be provided for > each type (float, double, long double, and possibly UDTs in some of > the proposed approaches). Is this the only objection? I haven't > analyzed the rest of the post because this could be a crucial > misunderstanding (I've read everything, only a little more > absent-mindedly). > > Genny.
Yes, it's what I meant. A different value should be provided for each type (and for 'long double', it will have to be machine-dependent: 80, 64+64 or 128 bits) and it must be exactly representable for the type (so, if the decimal representation of a constant doesn't at least end by a 5, there is an error). I thought I add to make it clear, since it's not the case in the "reviewed" library and it will be tedious to implement. Regards, Guillaume _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost