Re: [boost] Infinite precision integer draft

From: Ben Artin (macdev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-28 14:23:06

In article <4479A423.8010904_at_[hidden]>,
 Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> David Abrahams wrote:
> 
> >Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >
> >>The main (only, really, when it comes down to it) difference 
> >>between a signed and an unsigned integer is that an unsigned integer is 
> >>defined never to have a value less than 0. There are very valid reasons 
> >>to enforce such a restriction, 
> >
> >For example?
> >
> Various physical quantities only make sense for non-negative values. 

Wait a minute... please name one physical quantity that is

a) Always integer
b) Never negative
c) Not just an enum (i.e., not just a finite set of possible values)

I can't think of one, which makes me think that your argument about physical 
values is irrelevant, as you'd never use an unsigned *integer* for a physical 
value.

Ben

-- 
I changed my name: <http://periodic-kingdom.org/People/NameChange.php>