Boost logo

Boost :

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.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at