From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-06 06:33:15
on 3/6/00 6:20 AM, Moore, Paul at Paul.Moore_at_[hidden] wrote:
> I hope that's what rational<> was. You'll see some indications of my
> philosophy in that - the class is designed for *basic* use, and is
> definitely not suitable for specialist use. In fact, I'd freely admit that
> the behaviour of rational<> near its limits is dreadfully obscure and
> unhelpful. But it's not meant to be used like that...
> But you are right - I'll get back to offering code. My next likely project
> is a simple (a la rational) unlimited-precision integer class. Emphasising
> usability over raw performance, and aimed at people who don't want to risk
> hitting 32-bit limits, but NOT people who routinely work with huge numbers.
> Would people be interested?
I think you'll find yourself pressed by the group to make performance high
and to make sure it works well in edge cases. These things are often what
makes the difference between a library being widely used and being widely
ignored. I hope you'll be willing to rise to the challenge. The problem with
a library that is dreadfully obscure and unhelpful near its limits is that
experienced programmers know they will eventally enter that territory,
whether or not that is their intention ;)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk