Re: [boost] Yet another bignum type

From: Martin Bonner (martin.bonner_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-30 11:26:10

----Original Message----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Maarten Kronenburg
Sent: 30 November 2006 12:09 To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Yet another bignum type

> In my opinion software design is not mathematical proof that one
> design is better than another, but there is the mathematical fact
> that the set of unsigned integers is a subset of the integers, and
> the set of modular integers is a subset of the integers. 

But your classes do not represent the SET of integers and the SET of
modular integers.  They represent the FIELDS (you include the operators
- and the class wouldn't be much use if they didn't.

The modular integers do NOT form a sub-field of the integers, which is
why you shouldn't use derivation to represent them.

> The LWG would have to make a decision which design to prefer.

Yes.  

It is also true to say that even if there is /no/ competing proposal,
they would have to make a decision if they liked the proposed design.
My gut reaction is that you should be prepared for the LWG to be as
negative as the boost community.