Re: [boost] New Boost.XInt Library, request preliminary review

Subject: Re: [boost] New Boost.XInt Library, request preliminary review
From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-30 17:12:20

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 30 March 2010, Chad Nelson wrote:
> I'm sorry you don't see the logic behind it. I do, and n1744 (the
> "standardese" for the large-integer library proposal) specifies it, on
> page two: "all integer operations which return an (temporary) integer
> and many member operators may fail due to insufficient memory. Such
> errors are reported as overflow_error exceptions (as available memory
> defines the range of the integer class)."

Just to put my 2 cents in (on what is probably a minor issue after all), I 
find it conceptually silly for an "unlimited range integer" to throw an 
overflow_error.  Maybe it should be renamed "dynamicly unspecified range 
integer".  Boost isn't under any obligation to respect a design decision just 
because it's in a standard proposal.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkuyaTQACgkQ5vihyNWuA4U0FwCcC+w9F9JJTOTqFbmucCBmcdEI
sroAn0iisOZ7U9y6bmjaILYvpDnKyuan
=m+o2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----