Re: [boost] [review] Multiprecision review scheduled for June 8th - 17th, 2012

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Multiprecision review scheduled for June 8th - 17th, 2012
From: Christopher Kormanyos (e_float_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-31 16:24:51

>> * having an implicit narrowing conversion from double to bigint is a bad idea,
>> it should be explicit (it isn't completely obvious from the doc if that is the case).


> It's pretty hard to have some constructor conversions implicit and others explicit.
> Might be possible with enable_if though.  Will investigate.

It's a good comment. You know, a third of the people want it
one way, another third want it the other way and the others
don't care.

You know, my initial design of the floating-point type did not feature
this kind of conversion. But my opinion differed from the established
one of boost and I adapted to boost when writing for boost.

In fact, I believe that Boost.Math already set the bar on this
one because when using Boost.Math with an extended precision
type (this is possible), all implicit conversions to/from the built-in
types are supported.

I believe it would be incorrect to treat interaction with built-in
types behave one way in Boost.Math and a different way in a
potential Boost.Multiprecision.

This is my opinion. Others will have different opinions.

Best regards, Chris.