Redeclaration of max_factorial value #784
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
This few-letter change is ready for review/discussion |
|
Looks fine to me. |
Thank you , John! See also Multiprecison 429 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I found this one while snooping around with older compiler(s) and other projects. But it also influences Math/Multiprecision directly.
This minute change raises the question of exactly how should we deal with
staticconstexprPOD members of a class/struct? Even in the presence ofBOOST_NO_INCLASS_MEMBER_INITIALIZATIONdo these really need out-of-class initialization for any of the compilers we are using?That there is a mismatch between
constandconstexpris truly wrong. But what is right or less wrong?I addressed this question in my own developments about two years ago while modernizing and came to the conclusion that the extra out-of-class initialization is redundant, harmless and somehow is handled properly (or simply disregarded) by every old, new, embedded, etc. compiler that I use from 11, 14, 17, to 20 and beyond. So I synchronized the word
constexprand retained all such initializations in my projects.So within the context of this minute change in this PR, maybe some dialog regarding our philosophy in Boost will ensue?
Cc: @jzmaddock and @mborland and @NAThompson.