Re: [boost] Infinite precision integer draft

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-01 07:37:37

Daniel Mitchell <danmitchell_at_[hidden]> writes:

> I know I'm entering this discussion a little late, so forgive me if
> this has already been said, but I fail to see the point of having an
> unsigned_integer.  I understand that certain quantities are
> intrinsically non-negative and therefore the idea of an
> unsigned_integer has aesthetic value, but my experience with the
> built-in types is that unsigned integers create more problems than
> they solve. (I'm talking about subtraction and comparison to signed
> types.) An infinite precision signed integer can represent all the
> same values as an unsigned integer, so from a practical point of
> view, why bother with the unsigned type at all? It seems to me that
> it just introduces a lot of unnecessary complexity.

Agreed 100%.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com