2010.04.11 17:44, Steven Watanabe rašė:
AMDG
Scaling down to the [0, 1]^D unit hypercube you would get more precision this way. (Of course, you could use uint32_t, too, and the typedef would look like this: niederreiter_base2<uint32_t, D, 1, (1U << 32) /*!*/> [2], but g++ complains about left shift count >= width of type, and spits out a warning in the instantiation site.) I think this option could be best left to users, who know what they want.
I do find it odd that you use (1 << 31) which is a negative number. I'd prefer it if you used <uint32_t, D, 1, ((uint32_t)1 << 31)>
Done. You were right, as usual. I distinctly remember int being a 16 bit type in the times of old, when x286 reigned supreme. Patched and updated.
I'm not sure that this is a good idea. If you want discard to operate on a whole vector, then shouldn't operator() return a whole vector too? I'm guessing that returning a vector from operator() would make using the generator more inconvenient.
Yes, all those are very valid points. My rationale behind vector-discarding version was that I can do that in O(1), whereas consecutive operator() invocations unnecessarily make it a O(n) operation. Nevertheless, with a bit of twiddling it is possible to achieve O(1) for z consecutive elements, too (already done). So now we have as is told in the Draft: X u = v; for( int i = 0; i < N; ++i ) u(); v.discard(N); assert( u() == v() ); Cheers, Justinas