On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 00:50:32 +0200 (CEST), Guillaume Melquiond
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
