Re: [boost] [rational] with optional over/underflow checking

Subject: Re: [boost] [rational] with optional over/underflow checking
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-08-04 04:11:53

> Speeding rational up could be done as well, but the original question was
> is there any interest in a rational that optionally supports 
> over/underflow
> checking. As mentioned previously, the new template parameter would 
> control
> if the checking code were generated, or the original implementation. The
> original implementation would be great for Multiprecision integer types,
> and in fact, the checking code should be prevented from being used if
> the integer type is Multiprecision (type trait checks would be used to
> insure this). I'm ready to submit this code (or code change), make
> changes/fixes, update test cases, etc. but what would be the proper
> channel? Via the sandbox area?, post a big diff? The last discussion I
> saw on rational was on about 12/12/04, so there is the question of
> a current maintainer in the mix as well.

If there was a current maintainer, then filing a ticket or contacting them 
direct would be the way to go... as it is I suggest creating a modified 
version in the sandbox - I suspect that if you want to get a big-ish change 
accepted then you're more or less going to have to volunteer to become the 
next maintainer as well.  Sorry!

HTH, John.