*This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of NAD status.*

**Section:** 20.16.4 [ratio.arithmetic] **Status:** NAD
**Submitter:** Alisdair Meredith **Opened:** 2009-05-25 **Last modified:** 2019-02-27

**Priority: **Not Prioritized

**View all other** issues in [ratio.arithmetic].

**View all issues with** NAD status.

**Discussion:**

Both add and multiply could sensibly be called with more than two arguments. The variadic template facility makes such declarations simple, and is likely to be frequently wrapped by end users if we do not supply the variant ourselves.

We deliberately ignore divide at this point as it is not transitive. Likewise, subtract places special meaning on the first argument so I do not suggest extending that immediately. Both could be supported with analogous wording to that for add/multiply below.

Note that the proposed resolution is potentially incompatible with that proposed for 921, although the addition of the typedef to ratio would be equally useful.

*[
2009-10-30 Alisdair adds:
]*

The consensus of the group when we reviewed this in Santa Cruz was that 921 would proceed to Ready as planned, and the multi-paramater add/multiply templates should be renamed as

ratio_sumandratio_productto avoid the problem mixing template aliases with partial specializations.It was also suggested to close this issue as NAD Future as it does not correspond directly to any NB comment. NBs are free to submit a specific comment (and re-open) in CD2 though.

Walter Brown also had concerns on better directing the order of evaluation to avoid overflows if we do proceed for 0x rather than TR1, so wording may not be complete yet.

[ Alisdair updates wording. ]

[ 2009-10-30 Howard: ]Moved to Tentatively NAD Future after 5 positive votes on c++std-lib.

[LEWG Kona 2017]PR for

ratio_productis wrong, usesratio_addinstead ofratio_multiply. Recommend NAD: Doesn't meet the bar for standardization: hasn't been requested again in 7 years, easy to implement yourself.

**Rationale:**

Does not have sufficient support at this time. May wish to reconsider for a future standard.

**Proposed resolution:**

Add the following type traits to p3 20.16 [ratio]

// ratio arithmetic template <class R1, class R2> struct ratio_add; template <class R1, class R2> struct ratio_subtract; template <class R1, class R2> struct ratio_multiply; template <class R1, class R2> struct ratio_divide; template <class R1, class ... RList> struct ratio_sum; template <class R1, class ... RList> struct ratio_product;

after 20.16.4 [ratio.arithmetic] p1: add

template <class R1, class ... RList> struct ratio_sum; // declared, never defined template <class R1> struct ratio_sum<R1> : R1 {};

Requires:R1is a specialization of class templateratiotemplate <class R1, class R2, class ... RList> struct ratio_sum<R1, R2, RList...> : ratio_add< R1, ratio_sum<R2, RList...>> { };

Requires:R1and each element in parmater packRListis a specialization of class templateratio

after 20.16.4 [ratio.arithmetic] p3: add

template <class R1, class ... RList> struct ratio_product; // declared, never defined template <class R1> struct ratio_product<R1> : R1 {};

Requires:R1is a specialization of class templateratiotemplate <class R1, class R2, class ... RList> struct ratio_sum<R1, R2, RList...> : ratio_add< R1, ratio_product<R2, RList...>> { };

Requires:R1and each element in parmater packRListis a specialization of class templateratio