From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-19 17:36:08
At 09:57 PM 11/19/2000 +0000, Paul Moore wrote:
>Good point. I missed this case. And thanks for the clear and detailed bug
>report.
>
>I'd rather add a check as
>
>template <typename IntType>
>rational<IntType>& rational<IntType>::operator/= (const
rational<IntType>&
>r)
>{
> // Trap division by zero
> if (r.num == 0) throw bad_rational();
> // Avoid overflow and preserve normalization
> IntType gcd1 = gcd<IntType>(num, r.num);
> IntType gcd2 = gcd<IntType>(r.den, den);
> num = (num/gcd1) * (r.den/gcd2);
> den = (den/gcd2) * (r.num/gcd1);
> return *this;
>}
>
>I.e., test at the top, on the pinciple of avoiding unnecessary work. Why
>calculate two GCDs when you won't use them?
>
>A question - should this throw bad_rational() or is there a standard
divide
>by zero exception? (Couldn't find one in a brief glance in the
standard...)
>
>Beman, could you add this or would you like me to send a complete
>replacement rational.hpp?
CVS changed. bad_rational() seems OK to me. Paul, if you want write
access to CVS, let me know.
It's always great when boost developers can respond promptly to bug
reports.
Thanks,
--Beman