Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [multiprecision] General/design query about which conversions should be implicit/explicit
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-31 09:49:29

Le 31/05/14 13:56, John Maddock a écrit :
> Folks,
> I have an open bug report
> that requests that
> conversions from floating point to rational multiprecision-types be
> made implicit (currently they're explicit).
IMO, any conversion that loss information must be explicit. Only one
conversion that doesn't loss information could be implicit.
I guess that there is no implicit conversion from rational
multiprecision-types to floating point.

Does the floating point to rational multiprecision-types really don't
loss information, i.e. does the following hold?

double d1 = 0.1;
rational_mp r1 = d1;
double d2 = double(r1);
rational_mp r2 = d2;

> Now on the one hand the bug report is correct: these are non-lossy
> conversions, so there's no harm in them being implicit. However, it
> still sort of feels wrong to me, the only arguments against I can come
> up with are:
> 1) An implicit conversion lets you assign values such as 0.1 to a
> rational (which actually leads to 3602879701896397/36028797018963968
> not 1/10), where as making the conversion explicit at least forces you
> to use a cast (or an explicit construction).
> 2) Floating point values can result in arbitrarily large integer parts
> to the rational, effectively running the machine out of memory.
> Arguably the converting constructor should guard against that, though
> frankly exactly how is less clear :-(
> Does anyone else have any strong views or insights into this?
> Thanks in advance, John.
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

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