Talk:cpp/numeric/ratio

Utility or Numeric
I wonder if this logically belongs in cpp/numeric more than in (already overcrowded) cpp/utility. --Cubbi 08:47, 3 November 2011 (PDT)

That's not a bad question. I think the reason we put it here was to mimic the layout of the standard, which (presumably) had reasons for organizing it that way. If the standard is confusing, deviating from it seems fine, but perhaps it would be good to try to figure out why it's organized that way in the standard. Nate 06:03, 4 November 2011 (PDT)


 * I bet it's there in the standard because ratio (§20.10) was split off the time utilities library (§20.11), when it was understood that it could be useful in general. It's probably a bad idea to move it out of here, come to think of it, since people who know the contents of §20 will expect it in cpp/utility, but a link to the ratio library could also appear in cpp/numeric, just like how the generalized numeric operations (§26.7) are listed in both cpp/numeric and cpp/algorithm (with is something I strongly agree with). --Cubbi 06:46, 4 November 2011 (PDT)


 * I strongly agree that cpp/numeric is much better place for ratio. cpp/utility is actually like a dumping place where everything not related to a some large group is put. It already doesn't follow the standard because it contains bits from the language support library (§18). I think that moving ratio to cpp/numeric/ratio without leaving links at cpp/utility could be the best solution. The biggest advantage would be that it would be easier to find ratio for people who don't know the library very well. Consider an use case where an user comes here looking for tools to do some numeric crunching task. If ratio was at cpp/numeric/ratio, it most probably wouldn't be left unnoticed and be in potential user's tool arsenal. The fact that cpp/utility/ratio is not present shouldn't be a problem for those who know at least that ratio exists, much less for those who have memorized the standard, since the exact location for ratio can be found using the internal search. I think links shouldn't be left at cpp/utility, since it's already overcrowded and hard to navigate. As for generalized numeric operations, I think this was a different case, because they are equally related to both algorithms and numeric operations. Here ratio looks like to be much more related to cpp/numeric than cpp/utility. By the way, thanks for bringing this up! P12 10:46, 4 November 2011 (PDT)


 * I'm down with putting it in numeric. Nate 16:55, 4 November 2011 (PDT)