From: Stefan Slapeta (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-03 05:10:02
Beman Dawes wrote:
> I assume you meant "the story *isn't* over here":-)
Anyway ... :-)
> It has been quite a while, but IIRC the three proposed types are also
> supposed to be useful for decimal integers. To emphasize that,
> "floating-point" was removed from the name of the proposal.
> Perhaps Robert can clarify.
They are for sure. A decimal with a zero scale is an integer.
>>(1) an arbitrary length integer type
>>(2) an arbitrary length decimal floating point type, which is a
>> combination of (1) with an integer-like scale so that
>> decimal_value = large_integer_value / 10 ^ scale
>>(3) three specializations of (2) to provide the IEEE and TR2
>> conforming interface (32, 64, 128 digits)
> "The best is the enemy of the good," as Voltaire said.
yes, and "multa petentibus multa desunt" ;-)
> We don't have (1) or (2) for binary arithmetic yet. How is decimal special
> in that regard?
Why would we need that for binary arithmetic?
> It might be possible to break the job down into:
> (A) A core decimal arithmetic engine (presumably tailorable to different
> lengths, and replicable by hardware if chip companies do start providing
> hardware engines.)
> (B) Public interfaces to the core engine.
> (C) A test suite for the core engine, concentrating on arithmetic
> (D) A test suite for the public interfaces, concentrating on interface
> If you make some progress on (A), perhaps others might volunteer to tackle
> the other parts.
I'll see what I can do, but it's a large job. I'm off now for 4 weeks
and I'll create something to start with afterwards. And we should also
take the discussions during the boost decimal review into account.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk