Re: [boost] Infinite precision integer draft

From: Maarten Kronenburg (M.Kronenburg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-02 17:53:18

The base type unsigned int is a fact.
The modular_integer is a mathematical fact,
and the base type unsigned int is modular.
And users that want an integer that
is of infinite precision but they want to know
for sure will never become negative,
they have the option of using unsigned_integer.
I don't see any evil in this.
And the other side of the story is that if we
don't provide an unsigned_integer, people
will start making it themselves, and then
many unsigned integers will be floating
around in the end, all a little bit different.
Think about that too.
Regards, Maarten.

"Jonathan Ray" <ray.jonathan.w_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:6520d1d70606021309w6a4bb366h30935112e4e68c28_at_mail.gmail.com...
> Unsigned integers shouldn't exist.  If the programmer wants to check
> whether the number is greater than 0, or greater than 42, he can do it
> himself a lot faster than a try{} catch{} block in terms of both
> programming and runtime.  Creating the extra datatype would add
> completely unnecessary complexity to the situation.     Unnecessary
> complexity is the root of all evil.
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>