From: Joel Eidsath (jeidsath_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-06 21:03:21
>My point is that floating point representation of a number is in no way a peer
>concept of rational number. IOW your assertion :
>"Examples of basic rational number types in C++: float, double, etc."
Rational numbers are a mathematical concept, not a computer science
concept. Floats, doubles and so on hold rational numbers, not
irrationals, not integers.
Now, are you seriously claiming, as the first poster did, that
boost::rational will work whenever you need an arbitrary precision
rational number? Or do you have some other point? I really fail to see
what you are trying to get at.
The only point that you seemed to be trying to make with your examples
was that "boost::rational has it's place too..." Again, I fail to see
what that has to do with the discussion at hand. No one has said
anything different. (That place is just not an arbitrary precision
library rational class. For example, notice the calls to gcd() in the
constructor. You're toast as soon as you start dealing with large primes.)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk