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

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-23 11:19:55

As I wrote in another post,

Those restrictions on the "unsigned int" together with positive "int"
being a subset of "unsigned int" do give the implied invalidity.

If someone founds this argument to be illogical, please advice me.

And, yes, I am fully aware of the clause in The International Standard
saying that "all bets are off as soon as the program contains at least
one undefined operation"...

/David

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Anthony Williams
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 4:19 AM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: RE: [boost] Re: A pure C/C++ question

David Bergman writes:
 > Actually,
 > 
 > An implementation is not even allowed to do use that double-precision
> "interim".  > 
 > Since the arithmetic is supposed to be module 2^n, where n is the
number  > of bits in the integral type in question.  > 
 > Remember that "mathematically correct" should actually be
 > "mathematically correct in the module 2^n ring".

Only for unsigned types

Anthony

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