Boost logo

Boost :

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.

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