Boost logo

Boost :

From: Joel Eidsath (jeidsath_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-03 16:00:23

>Maths my field too (I thought you might figure that out of the expression
>'Z[sqrt(2)])(log(2))' ) but now I do not understand your original point (9)
Sorry about that. It looks like I got some words got cut out from my
original post at 9). Basically it's a choice between:

//first implementation of "set_precision"
rational a,b;
a.set_precision(50); //a's precision now set at 50
b.set_precision(150) //b's precision now set at 150, a's precision
still at 50
//Do some math
cout << (a + b) << endl << (b + a) //issues with the return values of
the expressions here

//second implementation
rational a,b;
set_precision(25) //a's and b's precision now at 25

I much prefer doing things the second way, but I wanted to get some
comments. Thread safety will be an issue the second way.

>Anyway I can say I agree with you on almost everything. Do you want to move
>forward with this idea?
I'd like to.

I discovered N1692 and N1794 while looking through the C++0x proceedings
yesterday. Here is the second:

It is a proposal for an arbitrary integer library. It doesn't really
say anything about implementation, but I think that I'll follow its
guidelines -- whether it is adopted or not (has it been already? -- I
don't know the comittee process), it's a good interface. Once that is
finished, I'll get started on the rationals side of things.

Joel Eidsath

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at