From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-12 16:23:54
From: Joel Eidsath <jeidsath_at_[hidden]>
> >I didn't see a cost savings (or penalty) there.
> I don't even know why I need to say this.
There can be many reasons why you might need to say "this."
Perhaps it's because you aren't adequately explaining yourself,
you are significantly more knowledgeable about the matter than
those you're interacting with, or you're missing the points being
raised. Perhaps it's something else, entirely. Nevertheless,
your reply sounds rude to me.
> For one thing, just look the
> GCD call at the creation of every boost::rational. You must understand
> the costs involved there when numbers get big.
How about just saying, "The thing that stands out most to me is
that boost::rational's default constructor does a lot of work for
large numbers due to the GCD call." What you wrote sounds
> >It does something akin to
> >the built-in floating-point types on common platforms (which are IEEE-754)
> >with a binary mantissa and exponent. It's a tradeoff, giving up arbitrary
> >denominators for quicker manipulation.
> Explain how you'd implement the square root function for a
> boost::rational type class. (Or a host of other functions.) Lots of
> calls to set_precision, I expect.
Here, rather than addressing the perceived misconception, you
seemingly attack the OP. Granted, asking someone to solve a
particular problem can often lead them to realize something
you're trying to convey, but wouldn't it be simpler to just state
your point in the interest of fostering communication?
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk