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 Ã©crit :
> 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk