jzmaddock

Well, I was going to say we should file a bug report again Eigen... and tried but gitlab tied me up in circles and I gave up :(

Thanks @cantonios for the prompt reply. > Otherwise, you could explicitly specialize std::complex - that should be legal as long as your type satisfies the [NumericType](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/named_req/NumericType) requirement. We're looking at...

> Why do you need to? You should be able to rig it up so that non-members are found via ADL. For sure, those overloads can be found via ADL,...

The polynomial could be evaluated for small arguments via: ``` template T generalized_laguerre(unsigned n, T alpha, T x) { return (boost::math::rising_factorial(alpha + 1, n) / boost::math::factorial(n)) * boost::math::hypergeometric_1F1(-T(n), alpha +...

> Would it make sense to add it to the boost polynomial class now that we have __has_include support? Sure, but I'll let you figure out the tests ;)

On 15/05/2016 16:46, Nick Matteo wrote: > Speaking of which, is there really a need to template the shift > operators on the right-hand parameter? Is there a case for...

On 15/05/2016 12:53, Jeremy W. Murphy wrote: > Hmmm, I guess this begs the question as to whether non-PoD numbers > (such as polynomial) should promote according to the same...

It took a bit of detective work, but yes, it's using lcov, and lcov has exclusion macros we can use. I did spot a few genuine cases not covered while...

The issue with assertions is that they are debug only, once the program is built with -D_NDEBUG=1 they disappear. >The six comparison operators are: ==, =, and !=. For all...

> Patient: "Doctor it hurts when it do -pedantic", > Doctor : "Don't do that!" > > But lets see what John thinks. We did use to be warning clean...