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

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-07 06:35:26

Using GMP with NTL is an option (for speed), but I there is NTL code which
does not use GMP.

We definitely need a big int and an arbitrary precision in Boost, but I am
unclear how to proceed (and I am not volunteering ;-).

Views?

Paul

Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
[phone]  [phone]
mailto: pbristow_at_[hidden]  www.hetp.u-net.com

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Joel Eidsath
| Sent: 06 September 2005 15:40
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in an arbitrary precision library?
| 
| 
| 
| >| My main dissatisfaction is that ZZ and RR don't quite fit 
| as drop-in 
| >| replacements for int and double.
| >
| >Is this a reasonable ambition?
| >
| >Aren't the fact that they are not builtin POD types always a problem?
| >
| >Paul
| >
| >
| >  
| >
| Yes.  But NTL could do with a few more overloads for operator= and 
| operator+ and so on.  Not a big deal by any means.  The 
| larger issue is 
| the GPL license.  If Stroup would be willing to release under a 
| different license, like you suggest, that would be great.  
| (As long as 
| he didn't use any GMP code in building NTL.  I think it's 
| from scratch, 
| but I don't know.)
| 
| Joel Eidsath
| _______________________________________________
| Unsubscribe & other changes: 
| http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
|