From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-18 18:27:24
I think we can only find if the overflow problem is a serious practical
but letting people try it - they HAVE been warned!
PS Nobody has responded to my query if the compiler can be
persuaded to insert checks (see CSR?) and do something on overflow.
All hardware can do something, if believe, but somehowC++ code (at least
never uses this. Is this something Boost can help with?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve M. Robbins [mailto:steven.robbins_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 2:12 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Rational precision issues
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 09:49:14AM -0000, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> > I believe a templated rational WILL be useful and will be used
> with 32 or 64
> > bit integers, (or unlimited precision integers when available).
> > Isn't the key advantage of rational is that results remain EXACT (no
> > rounding etc)?
> Yes, but that is only true if you use an arbitrary-precision integer
> package. And only if you stick to using the four basic arithmetic ops
> -- no sqrt(), no trig.
> > And perhaps rationals are quick too?
> Not if you use arbitrary-precision integers :-)
> by Rocket to the Moon,
> by Airplane to the Rocket,
> by Taxi to the Airport,
> by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
> by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
> - They Might Be Giants
> Info: http://www.boost.org Send unsubscribe requests to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk