From: Joel Eidsath (jeidsath_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-03 16:00:23
>
>Maths my field too (I thought you might figure that out of the expression
>'Z[sqrt(2)])(log(2))' ) but now I do not understand your original point (9)
>
>
Sorry about that. It looks like I got some words got cut out from my
original post at 9). Basically it's a choice between:
//first implementation of "set_precision"
rational a,b;
a.set_precision(50); //a's precision now set at 50
b.set_precision(150) //b's precision now set at 150, a's precision
still at 50
//Do some math
cout << (a + b) << endl << (b + a) //issues with the return values of
the expressions here
//second implementation
rational a,b;
set_precision(25) //a's and b's precision now at 25
I much prefer doing things the second way, but I wanted to get some
comments. Thread safety will be an issue the second way.
>Anyway I can say I agree with you on almost everything. Do you want to move
>forward with this idea?
>
>
I'd like to.
I discovered N1692 and N1794 while looking through the C++0x proceedings
yesterday. Here is the second:
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2005/n1781.pdf
It is a proposal for an arbitrary integer library. It doesn't really
say anything about implementation, but I think that I'll follow its
guidelines -- whether it is adopted or not (has it been already? -- I
don't know the comittee process), it's a good interface. Once that is
finished, I'll get started on the rationals side of things.
Joel Eidsath