From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-04 02:41:35
"Lucas Galfaso" <lgalfaso_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "Joel Eidsath" <jeidsath_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>>Do not agree. You should have ease of use _and_ efficiency. Modern C++
>>>techniques allow for this.
>> I was trying to give myself wiggle room, but I pretty much agree with
>> you. I don't expect anything as fast as GMP, but I imagine that a plain
>> C++ library could still do very well.
> Agree, I do not want to compete with GMP on performance, but, without
> sacrificing ease of use, have the best performance that a fully conformant
> C++ implementation allows.
IMO, if you don't want to compete with GMP, you should at least allow
the library to be built as a wrapper over GMP.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk