
Boost : 
From: Maarten Kronenburg (M.Kronenburg_at_[hidden])
Date: 20060531 09:57:00
The situation is a little bit different.
The integer binary operators like
operator+ and operator return
an integer, so the type of these
temporaries is integer.
Each type derived from type integer
has an
operator=( const integer & )
which converts the temporary integer
back to the derived type.
So after assigning the result, the
result is identical.
Then there are the temporaries
that are cloned inside the
integer binary operators,
and the corresponding virtual
member function is called of this clone.
Because the binary operator must
choose which object to clone,
the rhs or the lhs, the values of these clones
and the values of the integer temporaries
can be different between
abc
and
a(b+c).
So the values of the clones and the integer
temporaries can be different anyway,
but as the unsigned_integer throws and
exception when it becomes negative,
the brackets may decide whether an
exception is thrown.
The question is if this can be accepted,
if not the unsigned_integer must go.
In the document I will also mention
this issue.
Regards, Maarten.
"Maarten Kronenburg" <M.Kronenburg_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:e5k67i$7hr$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> Because the integer binary operators
> must clone the rhs OR the lhs,
> the temporaries in expressions can be
> of type integer OR derived type.
> Now as each derived type has an
> operator=( const integer & )
> which turns the integer temporary
> back to the derived type,
> the result after assignment is always
> identical.
> But the temporaries can still be either
> integer type or derived type.
> This expression
> abc
> can have another type of temporary then
> a(b+c)
> However which type it is is independent
> of compiler, because of the
> [expr.add] remark.
> Now the question is that because
> unsigned_integer throws an exception
> when it becomes negative,
> is it acceptable that when a and b nonzero,
> abc
> then throws an exception and
> a(b+c)
> not?
> Regards, Maarten.
>
> "Maarten Kronenburg" <M.Kronenburg_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:e5id0q$9ev$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> > There is however one catch to the
> > unsigned_integer: the expression
> > abc
> > Then look in [expr.add]:
> > "The additive operators group from
> > lefttoright".
> > The integer binary operator
> > first clones the rhs, negates it,
> > and then adds to it the lhs.
> > This guarantees that when b or c
> > are nonzero unsigned_integer,
> > then ALWAYS an exception
> > is thrown.
> > BUT what about
> > a(b+c)
> > Now (b+c) returns a temporary
> > integer (not unsigned_integer),
> > which is negated (NO exception)
> > and a is added to it.
> > So although the behaviour is
> > compilerindependent because of the
> > [expr.add] remark, the use of braces
> > in expressions may change the
> > behaviour of an unsigned_integer
> > expression, that is while
> > abc
> > may throw an exception,
> > a(b+c)
> > may not.
> > Regards, Maarten.
> >
> > "Maarten Kronenburg" <M.Kronenburg_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:e5gvs8$jbm$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> > > If you don't mind I start a new thread here.
> > > The unsigned infinite precision integer is
> > > different from the base type unsigned int,
> > > which is actually a modular integer with
> > > modulus 2^n.
> > > Therefore two integer derived classes are
> > > needed: unsigned_integer and modular_integer.
> > > The unsigned_integer is an infinite precision
> > > integer which can only be positive or zero.
> > > The negate() of a nonzero unsigned_integer
> > > will always throw an exception.
> > > A subtraction which results in a negative value
> > > will do the same; therefore in my opinion
> > > there is no fundamental problem with this,
> > > as negation is subtraction from zero.
> > > The modular_integer has a static method
> > > static void set_modulus( const integer & ).
> > > When the modulus is not set, it is zero,
> > > in that case the modular_integer is identical to integer.
> > > Users that like an unsigned integer with
> > > a negate() that always works, will have to
> > > use a modular_integer and set its modulus
> > > to a positive value.
> > > In the document I will specify unsigned_integer
> > > and modular_integer, and thus implementations
> > > can provide them.
> > > Regards, Maarten.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk