Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for New Multiple-Precision/ Arbitrary-Precision Numbers Library
From: Reetesh Mukul (reetesh.mukul_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-31 07:39:44
ecyrbe <ecyrbe <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 2010/7/31 Reetesh Mukul <reetesh.mukul <at> gmail.com>
> > Hi,
> > I know the purposes and necessities of a Multiple-Precision and
> > Arbitrary Precision Numbers Library in C++ have echoed many a times
> > in BOOST mail chain. Moreover in past and in present many such efforts
> > have been on to address these needs( Google SoC, XINT, and many others
> > ). I too have a long, consistent interest in this area and so is this
> > proposal. I am putting some of the points in Q & A format.
> I'm sorry, but i don't get it. You know that there is already a gsoc
> implementation named xint that is ready for review and you still want to
> reinvent the wheel?
> Pleade consider taking a look at xint.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
I have seen some of the codes of XINT. Xint or any other library internally
can use the implementation proposed by me.
What I mean that in my proposal (which I will call Spring) the aim
is different and is meant for doing something similar to what GMP does. So for
performance purposes Spring aims to be as efficient as GMP. You will see
assembly language codes and compiler oriented codes in Spring.
Meanwhile Spring is Mathematically oriented library where Algebra of a type
is deduced to manufacture numbers. So its not limited to some particular RAW
Please go through my proposal and we can discuss things further.
Spring differs in its philosophy from XINT and should not be seen in exclusive
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk