From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-30 06:48:56
>[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jeff Garland
>Sent: 30 November 2006 00:57
>Subject: Re: [boost] Yet another bignum type
>Note that besides Daryle's new effort, which I haven't looked
>Boost BigInt by Ron Garcia and friends in the sandbox as well.
> Not sure why we keep reinventing this but never finishing...
As, I suspect, a representative of those who don't fully understand the details of these discussions, I feel impelled to say how
very strange I find it that Boost has several flavours of fancy points but lacks any sort of bigger integer.
Surely, bigger integers are quite fundamental; and have many potential applications.
I ask again if our review process is partly to blame for this.
IMO people are not going to put in the boring work on finishing it to the rightly rigorous review standard unless they feel they
have a good chance of getting it through (and maybe not even then - but would be happy for someone else to do the drudge work on
testing and documentation). Do we need some process for deciding that a particular design/prototype is a 'candidate for work towards
a full review' in order to provide that encouragement?
--- Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539561830 & SMS, Mobile +44 7714 330204 & SMS pbristow_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk