Skip to content

Conversation

@traversaro
Copy link

@traversaro traversaro commented Feb 23, 2024

While debugging a strange ABI issue in a downstream Boost Chrono package (RoboStack/ros-noetic#448), I found an inconsistencies between std::ratio and boost::ratio. I was not able to reproduce the issue, however I noticed that in Boost Chrono there are some inconsistency in the use of ratio, that sometimes is used as boost::ratio, and sometimes is used just ratio (this is probably a leftover from the time where std::ratio did not exist).

Regardless of the root issue I was experiencing, I think (but I may be wrong) that it may be beneficial to uniform the usage in the library to always use boost::ratio, for consistency and avoid confusion with std::ratio .

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant