RE: [boost] Re: Re: A pure C/C++ question

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-22 10:40:28

Hmmm,

There are obviously no irrationals in a finite system, and even if one
would introduce irrational base elements, such as "pi" as base vectors;
one would not be able to diagonalize out of the rationals w.r.t that new
base system.

What I was after was the fraction syntax, or the "C++ rational" of
dealing with "a/b", where both a and b are "int".

If most cases where we would need the double precision interim handling
by the ALU are indeed fraction arithmetics, as I think, then let's
introduce fractions and implement, through "asm"-ing, and/or promoting
the importance of fractions for the next standardization of  C++.

To bad "//" is allocated for comment purposes... Else,   c * a//b  would
be a decent syntax...

/David

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Maxim Shemanarev
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:35 AM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: [boost] Re: Re: A pure C/C++ question

> I realize that I should restate two things:
>
> 1. Dealing with integers in a context-sensitive manner would 
> complicate semantics

Not appropriate at all. No "context sensitivity" in computer languages.

> 2. Introducing "fractional" syntax would underline the main purpose, 
> multiplying a rational number with a whole or other rational number. 
> Does that not cover most cases where this would be useful?

Well, it's actually hard to say. What's a rational number? Afterall any
double is a rational number. There're no irrationals in the discrete
systems. I have explained the main difference between floating point and
integers in some previous post and I believe we don't need any
universe-wide solution. All we need is a simple single function y=x*a/b
but NOT a general solution. I also have written why it's impossible.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost