Re: [boost] Infinite precision integer draft

From: Marsh J. Ray (marsh.boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-01 21:31:08

Sebastian Redl wrote:
> No, that's not true. (See Scott Meyers, Effective C++, Item 35) If a 
> signed integer IS-A unsigned integer, then all invariants of unsigned 
> integer must hold true for signed integer - including the one about 
> negative values. ("There's no such thing.")
>   
If this type is meant to have an invariant "about negative values", then 
perhaps it shouldn't be called UNsigned_integer (i.e. lacking the 
quality of sign)? Perhaps a better name would be nonnegative_integer.

I think I'll ask the waiter if he can unsweeten my tea . . . on second 
thought, maybe I'd better not.

- Marsh