[boost] [rational] Over/underflow checked update ready for comments

Subject: [boost] [rational] Over/underflow checked update ready for comments
From: Dan Searles (dansearles_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-06 20:53:11

Le 06/09/12 04:28, Dan Searles a ?crit :>Le 06/09/12 04:28, Dan Searles a ?crit :
>>>> For those interested in the rational number class, see:
>>>> https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/rational
>>>>
>>>> Requesting comments on the code, and review for
>>>> inclusion in the next release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> the enum type could follow the one defined in
>>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3352.html
>>> "When an overflow does occur, the desirable behavior depends on the
>>> application, so programmers may specify the overflow mode with a value
>>> of type |enum class overflow|. The possible values are:
>>>
>>> |impossible|
>>>      Programmer analysis of the program has determined that overflow
>>>      cannot occur. Uses of this mode should be accompanied by an argument
>>>      supporting the conclusion.
>>> |undefined|
>>>      Programmers are willing to accept undefined behavior in the event of
>>>      an overflow.
>>> |modulus|
>>>      The assigned value is the dynamic value mod the range of the
>>>      variable. This mode makes sense only with unsigned numbers. It is
>>>      useful for angular measures.
>>> |saturate|
>>>      If the dynamic value exceeds the range of the variable, assign the
>>>      nearest representable value.
>>> |exception|
>>>      If the dynamic value exceeds the range of the variable, throw an
>>>      exception of type |std::overflow_error|.
>> 'impossible' and 'undefined' are effectively the same thing, and
>> equivalent to the 'no check' currently implemented.
>Yes and not. Maybe from the point of view of the library, but this is a
>useful information from the user point of view.

So for the 'impossible' case, what should the library do when there is
an over/underflow?

>>> 'modulus' makes
>>> more sense for the fixed point class that it's being described for
>>> than rational numbers. I'm not sure a useful definition can even be
>>> made for rationals.
>>You are right. modulus for rational has not a clear sense.
>> 'Saturate' sounds like it might be useful, but gets problematic
>> quickly when there is under/overflow within the largest/smallest
>> range limits.
>Could you clarify?

'Saturate' implies returning the max value when the computed result is
larger than can be represented, and returning the min value when the
computed is smaller (more negative) than can be represented, but
rationals can underflow between those extremes. For example, what
is 1/2 * 1/maxint?


>> The point is that if a result of a calculation is not
>> exactly representable, you will get an exception to notify you. And of
>> course 'exception' is in the new implementation for just that purpose.
>A user can be interested in overflow check without exceptions. The
>saturate policy should be a good replacement in context where exceptions
>are not allowed.

I can't quite see a point for there being 3 possible results when
there is an overflow: exception, undefined, and ???. Maybe if '???'
is a wrong value, but as close as possible? If you don't need
the exact answers, float or double would probably be better.
Returning zero for ??? might work.


>Anyway, you should replace the CamelCase use in the definition of this
>new enumeration. I think that basing your definition on the preceding
>one could be acceptable.

Which ones? Please suggest the names you think would be appropriate.
(I tried to pick names that had a low probability of ever being used anywhere
else. Common single dictionary words are probably not good.)

>>>
>>>> BTW, I have no access to the link for the examples and the test.
>>> I have not changed those files. The existing examples and test
>>> are still valid for the original non-checked case. For the checked
>>> case, I have tests which run for hours. The tests for rational
>>> instantiated with signed char is exhaustive (there are only so
>>> many normalized values. Pairing up each value with every
>>> other value on the binary operators doesn't result in much more
>>> that 2**32 combinations). For short/int/long long, sets of interesting
>>> values are created, and each value is paired up with every other
>>> value in the set. I can provide the test drivers if anyone is
>>> interested.
>>I was interested by the examples and test using the new facility. Could
>>you commit them in the sandbox, please?


Uploaded the test driver to:
https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/rational/Test_Rationals

>
>Best,
>Vicente

Thanks

Dan Searles