From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-03 16:51:42
> There was a recent thread entitled "Benefit/Complexity ratio..."
> in which it was suggested that a number of similar libraries
> could reasonably coexist within Boost; and it seems to me that
> fixed-point decimal and fixed-point binary libraries are good
> examples. Just because they both have "fixed-point" in their
> titles doesn't mean that they both do the same things. Indeed,
> the two main application domains, financial for decimal and
> embedded systems for binary, are quite different. Sure, much
> of the interface will be similar; but that's just because they're
> both numeric types and so necessarily have operator+=, etc.
> Personally, I would welcome Stephen's fixed-point binary library
> as a separate submission.
Thanks for pointing this out, I missed it completely....
> BTW, saying that I "rejected" a template version of the fixed-
> point decimal proposal is a bit too strong.
Sorry to put words in your mouth...
> I just thought the non-template version was a bit easier to
> do. Whether that's also true for a fixed-point binary class
> remains to be seen. (Also, one reason for going to a
> non-template design was that I have a personal requirement for
> the library to be usable with a compiler that doesn't seem to
> be able to deduce non-type template arguments. That's not mentioned
> in the fixed-point decimal documentation because that compiler
> isn't supported by Boost.)
That's unfortunate because the non-template version definitely
introduces inefficiencies when the scale is known at compile
time. Perhaps the template variant could be provided for
compliant compilers? As for easier, as I recall the template
version was already working?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk