Boost logo

Boost :

From: Martin Bonner (martin.bonner_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-30 05:21:21

----Original Message----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Ben Artin Sent: 28
May 2006 19:23 To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Infinite precision integer draft

> 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.

Stretching "physical" slightly, but how about "the number of elements of
a given set"? (Where such a set could be "the number of people alive
today"). The only difficulty I see with that, is that a 64-bit "long
long" would be more than enough for my example.

That raises the question, what are the use cases for the integer class?

Martin Bonner
Pi Technology, Milton Hall, Ely Road, Milton, Cambridge, CB4 6WZ,
ENGLAND Tel: +44 (0)1223 203894

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at