Re: [boost] Interest in an arbitrary precision library?

From: Lucas Galfaso (lgalfaso_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-05 18:18:31

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:u3boli8k0.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> "Lucas Galfaso" <lgalfaso_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> "Joel Eidsath" <jeidsath_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:431931ED.7060901_at_gmail.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>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.

Sorry if my statement was misunderstood, but when I said that I do not want 
to compete with GMP I did not mean that I am not considering speed, just 
that I will con write assembler to get a 5% improvement.
The implementation I placed at the sandbox some few month ago, does have one 
of the fastest, pure C++, implementation of the modular exponentiation that 
I know about [and it has one of the poorest implementation of 
serialization/deserialization]. My goal in pursuing an implementation in 
Boost of big integers is not to have the _best_ implementation possible, but 
one that
 .) is really easy to use.
 .) fast (not fastest ever, just fast.)
 .) Boost like license.
 .) using C++ (not C as GMP)

Regards,
  LG

>
> -- 
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> www.boost-consulting.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>