Re: [boost] LWG Feedback: Rational number library

From: Bill Seymour (bill-at-the-office_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-14 10:58:27

Beman wrote:
>
> The only real technical issue I can remember being mentioned
> was a question as to why the design had chosen eager rather
> than lazy evaluation.
>

I don't remember that one; but maybe I was taking a biology
break at the time. 8-)

Regardless of the rationale for eager evaluation (IIRC, to
avoid overflow as much as possible), should that really be
an issue?  It seems like a QoI issue that wouldn't go into
the Standard anyway.

--Bill Seymour