Re: [boost] [fixed_point] Request for interest in a binary fixed point library

Subject: Re: [boost] [fixed_point] Request for interest in a binary fixed point library
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-11 19:29:22

Le 12/04/12 00:29, Neal Becker a écrit :
> Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>
>> ...
>> I  understand that providing access to the underlying type open possible
>> extensions, but the internals would be quite complex when managing
>> chunks of words. Should the library be limited to builtin underlying
>> types without chunks?
> builtin underlying types is sufficient for anything I've ever needed.  If I ever
> need>64 bits, I can always resort to chunking myself.  If chunking can be
> implemented without substantial cost, then go for it.  But, I don't want to pay
> for what I don't use.
>
>
>
Neither me. I think that it is a good compromise to provide only the 
underlying representation when the user has a way to master it or when 
it is not an implementation detail.

When the fixed point is small enough to fill in a builtin the class can  
provide a underlying function that get it. It is more difficult to 
provide it when the class need to use chunks. I could understand that 
the user could need a  way to get all the chunks without any associated 
semantic, but not the direct representation except if the representation 
is not an implementation detail.

Best,
Vicente