From: Colin P. A. <co...@co...> - 2008-01-11 14:37:50
|
>>>>> "Colin" == Colin Adams <col...@go...> writes: Colin> OK. I understand your point now. I did think at the Colin> weekend about making it a generic parameter (constrained to Colin> a descendant of NUMERIC), but then I got side-tracked by Colin> the possibility of eliminating MA_DECIMAL altogether. Colin> I will investigate this at the weekend. I've reviewed DT_XSLT_NUMBERER_EN to see whether this is possible. The main problem seems to be the use of {MA_DECIMAL}.is_integer/to_integer as NUMERIC doesn't have these. The use of {MA_DECIMAL}.to_scientific_string is also an issue - but it is probably non-conformant as it is. I can eliminate MA_DECIMAL quite easily by using a new deferred class which will have two descendants, one based on INTEGER_64 or INTEGER_32, and one based on MA_DECIMAL. But you are already unhappy about the use of auxiliary classes. And I definitely can't eliminate the unicode library usage. -- Colin Adams Preston Lancashire |