Date: 2001-10-10 02:37:35
--- In boost_at_y..., Daryle Walker <darylew_at_m...> wrote:
> on 10/9/01 6:33 AM, Helmut at helmut.zeisel_at_a... wrote:
> >>> --------------- dlw_gcd -------------
> > The more severe restriction, IMHO, is that you
> > require an absolute value of the same type as your ring elements,
> > which indeed restricts your algorithm to integer-like classes.
> The original versions weren't guaranteed for anything beyond
> classes anyway.
I wrote "IMHO" because I really want to point out
that this is my personal opionion.
As I deduce from the other (non)reactions,
other people do not share this opinion.
Essentialy what I want to say is less specific
to GCD but more general:
When writing a generic algorithm it is important
to find the correct domain where the algorithm should work.
Clearly this involves a trade-off between the danger
that the algorithm promises to work for a domain where
it has not been tested properly
and the danger that one restricts the domain
too much by adding unnecessary restrictions.
Finding the correct domain can be difficult;
and as the example of GCD shows,
opinions whether the correct domain has really been found
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk