<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Dave Abrahams <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:dave@boostpro.com">dave@boostpro.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
on Sat Aug 27 2011, John Maddock &lt;<a href="http://boost.regex-AT-virgin.net" target="_blank">boost.regex-AT-virgin.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; * Should we have a single unified concept for all number types in<br>
&gt; Boost.... if yes what happens when the next latest and greatest<br>
&gt; library comes along and requires slightly different concepts to<br>
&gt; function efficiently? �What I&#39;m saying is it&#39;s pretty hard to get this<br>
&gt; right.<br>
<br>
</div>This is to say nothing of the semantic vagaries of limited-precision<br>
floating point. �It&#39;s almost impossible to even create reliable<br>
mathematical concepts that accomodate floats, doubles, et. al.<br>
<div class="im"></div></blockquote><div><br>Ain&#39;t that the plain truth. I can&#39;t speak for accommodating floats, doubles, etc. We pretty much decided to go with float or Single across the board for precision reasons for what we&#39;re doing.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">
--<br>
Dave Abrahams<br>
BoostPro Computing<br>
<a href="http://www.boostpro.com" target="_blank">http://www.boostpro.com</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">Boost-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Boost-users@lists.boost.org">Boost-users@lists.boost.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users" target="_blank">http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>