From: Cromwell Enage (sponage_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-11 08:03:44
--- Andy Little wrote:
> > There may be an implementation of gcd<> that is
> > more efficient even if it works solely on
> > big_integral<> numbers.
> Surely it would make sense to specialise this for
> > Or there may not, but for now, I shouldn't rule
> > anything that promises to make big_integral<>
> > operations less expensive.
> But these operations will now be unneccessarily
> expensive for small_int types.
Then there should be a gcd specialization for them,
too, right? One that doesn't require recursive
> Your version of gcd looks is obviously optimised
> for big_integral.
Really? I haven't even taken advantage of anything
that's specific to big_integral<>, but okay...
...if I ever get big_integral<> to work.
> However my requirements on rational would be for a
> large number of smallint types. I hope you will
> this into account in the design and favour the
> implementation more towards small_int types as well.
> OK maybe that would be quicker, and give better
> messages. But you will need a tag dispatch
> anyway wont you?, to avoid a large number of
Yes. Like I said, I'll do that.
Cromwell D. Enage
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk