Subject: Re: [boost] a safe integer library
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-12-10 18:07:18
Le 10/12/2015 08:49, Robert Ramey a écrit :
> Arithmetic operations in C++ are NOT guaranteed to yield a correct
> mathematical result. This feature is inherited from the early days of
> C. The behavior of int, unsigned int and others were designed to map
> closely to the underlying hardware. Computer hardware implements these
> types as a fixed number of bits. When the result of arithmetic
> operations exceeds this number of bits, the result will not be
> arithmetically correct.
>
> I have crafted a library to address this issue once and for all. You
> can find out more about this by checking out the page for Safe
> Numerics at the boost library incubator. www.blincubator.com
>
> I hereby request that this library be added to the boost review queue.
>
> I've also made a proposal for the C++ Standards committee to include a
> simplified version of this library as part of he C++ standard.
>
> You can see the proposal at
> http://www.rrsd.com/software_development/safe_numerics/proposal.pdf
>
>
>
Hi Robert,
these links are broken
Library Implementation
<https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/robertramey/safe_numerics/master/doc/html/index.html>
Checked_Result<R>
<https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/robertramey/safe_numerics/master/doc/html/index.html>
Checked Integer Arithmetic
<https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/robertramey/safe_numerics/master/doc/html/index.html>
Interval Arithmetic
<https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/robertramey/safe_numerics/master/doc/html/index.html>
Performance Tests
<https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/robertramey/safe_numerics/master/doc/html/index.html>
minor comments:
* I believe the name safe<T> is too broad for the kind of types this
class can wrap.
* Remove any adherence to boost in the standard proposal (include
<boost/...)
* I see that boost::numeric::safe and std::safe differ on the template
parameters. I see why the standard version is not configurable and just
throws. However, I don't see why this doesn't applies to the proposal
for Boost. What is not good for the standard can be good for Boost?
Vicente