Re: [boost] Infinite precision integer draft

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.  

Amen, brother!

> 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