"Maarten Kronenburg" <M.Kronenburg@inter.nl.net> writes:
The base type unsigned int is a fact.
Yes, one that's borne out of a need not to lose any bits when expressing numbers that can't be negative, which doesn't apply to infinite precision integers.
The modular_integer is a mathematical fact,
Yes, one that's totally incompatible with the idea of infinite precision.
and the base type unsigned int is modular.
Point being?
And users that want an integer that is of infinite precision but they want to know for sure will never become negative, they have the option of using unsigned_integer. I don't see any evil in this.
Do you not acknowledge the costs of unnecessary complexity?
And the other side of the story is that if we don't provide an unsigned_integer, people will start making it themselves
I doubt it. Have you met anyone who would go to the trouble to do so? Does an unsigned infinite precision integer type exist anywhere today?
, and then many unsigned integers will be floating around in the end, all a little bit different.
The separate range limiting wrapper is a separate library. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com