[boost] Re: Re: rational interface

From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-24 13:52:38

Andras Erdei wrote:
> Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>
>>> i think we need two parameters: one for specifying the precision,
>>> and one for specifying the variant to use
>>
>> But this leaves out the int_type; users must be able to write
>>
>>          rational<big_int>
>>
>> or similarly for any UDT which supports the euclidean algorithm.
>
> [personally i don't like the name big_int, i always have to translate
> it mentally from meaning "arbitrary/big, but limited precision" like a
> modular arithmetic based integer type, to "unlimited (dynamic)
> precision"]
>
> i'm not entirely convinced that the unlimited precision rational
> should be treated (at the interface level) as a special case of the fixed
> precision rational type: rounding/checking does not make sense with
> it, it may turn out to require a (sadly) slightly different interface
> (e.g. it may be better off with allowing expression templates to be
> used -- although that could be true for limited precision as well),
> and the implementation will surely not share code with that of
> limited precision

I've started a new thread "[rational] Announcing new maintainer -- call for
feature requests"

Jonathan