Re: [boost] Infinite precision integer draft

From: Maarten Kronenburg (M.Kronenburg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-29 16:49:29

Gerhard,
Unfortunately I know nothing about threading.
The integer class itself also has static variables,
although not static integers.
Will this then also be a threading problem?
Users are of course free to make an
unsigned integer with a non-static modulus.
The sign of x mod y is the sign of y (or zero).
This means that when the user supplies
a negative modulus, the unsigned integers
are always negative or zero.
This seems to me to be the most consistent.
Regards, Maarten.

"Gerhard Wesp" <gwesp_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:20060529143644.GE29026_at_google.com...
> > So the unsigned_integer would have a static method
> > void set_modulus( const integer & ).
>
> I'd prefer not to have a program-global modulus.  Remember that we're
> also trying to put threading into TR2.
>
> Alternatives:
> - Optional modulus argument to certain functions.  This seems to be the
>   approach that Mathematica chooses.
> - Maybe a reference to the modulus in the constructor.
>
> [ Yes, I know that NTL uses the static modulus approach.  Still, my gut
> feeling tells me this is suboptimal. ]
>
> BTW, it seems strange that modular arithmetic should restricted to
> unsigned integers.
>
> Regards
> -Gerhard
> -- 
> Gerhard Wesp
> ZRH office voice: [phone]
> ZRH office fax: [phone]
> For the rest I claim that raw pointers must be abolished.
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>