From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-02 07:03:10
Dave Steffen <dgsteffen_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > IMO the whole idea of using inheritance here is so misguided in the
> > first place that which order you do it in is probably not worth
> > arguing about.
> I agree, but turn it around; this is another point in favor of not
> using inheritance at all.
That's not a "but." I was saying exactly the same thing: using
inheritance here at all is misguided.
> I'm with many other here, in thinking that there's no need for an
> unsigned infinite integer.
I'm also saying that.
> An unsigned version could be added later, _after_ you've got use
> cases for it.
> Start with the simple thing.
...and the thing that's known to be useful. If there's no other
widely used infinite precision unsigned integer library out there by
now, it's probably a pretty good indicator that it isn't useful.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk