Re: [boost] Re: Standardization of Boost libraries

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-07 09:24:04

Yes, that would be very useful. Search the message archives for
"unlimited precision", and you'll find some discussion. I think nobody
pursued it because they weren't willing to figure out how to make a
truly efficient implementation. The simple-minded approaches do lots
more work than neccessary.

-Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Peters" <R.A.Peters_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Standardization of Boost libraries

> Would a class representing integers of unlimited length be usefull? I
was wondering
> why I haven't seen it yet in boost. As far as I can see, a class that
acts like an
> int but that has no limits other than available memory shouldn't be
very hard to
> make.
>
> Richard Peters
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Toon Knapen" <toon.knapen_at_[hidden]>
>
>
> > On Wednesday 06 March 2002 21:05, you wrote:
> > >   2A) math
> > >   2B) math/common factor
> > >   2C) math/special functions
> > >   2D) rational
> > >   2E) random
> > >   as one math library
> > >
> > >   Why?  The Boost math library (comprised of all of these
portions)
> > > extends the vision of the existing math portions of C++98's
standard
> > > libraries, forming a comprehensive treatment of more & more
> > > broadly-useful math topics.
> >
> > There definitly should be a matrix library as well. But as neither
ublas or
> > MTL3 are ready for prime time, I really hope we'll be able to
propose a
> > matrix lib the meeting after this one. Such a matrix library is
really really
> > necessary for all numerics work. Once this is in the C++ standard, I
see no
> > reason for scientists to stick with Fortran.
>
>
>
> Info: http://www.boost.org  Send unsubscribe requests to:
<mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>