Re: [boost] Re: rationals initialization bug

From: Mark D Rintoul (rintoul_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-28 13:03:57

Lutz Kettner wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I guess there is a culture clash at work. My background is
> computational geometry and we rely on exact arithmetic. A rational
> number class and exactness is pretty fundamental to us. So, my
> apologies if the following turns out to be a bit harsh.
> 

        I was about to add my 2 cents worth, but Lutz came in and added
at least half a dollar's worth so I won't rehash his points.  But
let me add some support for what he said (albeit biased support since
my background also contains a lot of computational geometry).  
A rational class is really just an academic exercise to me once you
start involving lossy floating point conversions that are not 
very explicitly spelled out.  To be harsher, who the heck is using this
class?  Probably only people who specifically need rationals and whose
universe doesn't include floating point numbers.  Generally, the two
don't mix well in applications. 

        That is *not* to say it isn't a great class.  :)  But I really
do believe that one must tread very carefully when introducing the
floating point numbers, and make sure the programmer knows exactly
what they are doing.

                        Danny
 
-- 
------------------
Mark D. (Danny) Rintoul, Dept. 9235
Computational Biology & Materials Technology
Sandia National Laboratories
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
email: rintoul_at_[hidden]
------------------