Re: [boost] [xint] Design Question

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Design Question
From: Scott McMurray (me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-09 12:16:42

On 8 July 2010 23:27, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Why not just go the simple route and define it as "undefined
> behaviour", then just pretend they will never get a negative number
> and let your math functions choke on it as they wish, making invalid
> values, dividing by zero, whatever, it is "undefined behaviour" after
> all.
>

I think that's somewhat too severe, since one of the reasons for using
an unlimited-precision integer it to avoid UB and IDB.