-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Garland Sent: 30 November 2006 00:57 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Yet another bignum type
Note that besides Daryle's new effort, which I haven't looked at, there's Boost BigInt by Ron Garcia and friends in the sandbox as well. Not sure why we keep reinventing this but never finishing...
As, I suspect, a representative of those who don't fully understand the details of these discussions, I feel impelled to say how very strange I find it that Boost has several flavours of fancy points but lacks any sort of bigger integer. Surely, bigger integers are quite fundamental; and have many potential applications. I ask again if our review process is partly to blame for this. IMO people are not going to put in the boring work on finishing it to the rightly rigorous review standard unless they feel they have a good chance of getting it through (and maybe not even then - but would be happy for someone else to do the drudge work on testing and documentation). Do we need some process for deciding that a particular design/prototype is a 'candidate for work towards a full review' in order to provide that encouragement? Paul --- Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539561830 & SMS, Mobile +44 7714 330204 & SMS pbristow@hetp.u-net.com