Andras Erdei wrote:
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
i think we need two parameters: one for specifying the precision, and one for specifying the variant to use
But this leaves out the int_type; users must be able to write
rational<big_int>
or similarly for any UDT which supports the euclidean algorithm.
[personally i don't like the name big_int, i always have to translate it mentally from meaning "arbitrary/big, but limited precision" like a modular arithmetic based integer type, to "unlimited (dynamic) precision"]
i'm not entirely convinced that the unlimited precision rational should be treated (at the interface level) as a special case of the fixed precision rational type: rounding/checking does not make sense with it, it may turn out to require a (sadly) slightly different interface (e.g. it may be better off with allowing expression templates to be used -- although that could be true for limited precision as well), and the implementation will surely not share code with that of limited precision
I've started a new thread "[rational] Announcing new maintainer -- call for feature requests" Jonathan