Re: [boost] Infinite precision integer draft
Sorry for confusing us both! When I say heap I was referring to memory allocated dynamically via the POSIX methods or C++ new/delete. Although the majority of my background has been in a Win32 environment when I deal with standard C++ and boost the word Microsoft doesn't enter into my vocabulary. I was working/speaking under the mistaken assumption that each instance of integer has its own allocator by type as in the standard library or at runtime as many but not all wish it. As such I thought integer_allocator was an interface or close to one and there was a separate class that implements that interface or abstract class that had the code for the dynamic memory allocations. I totally missed the following sentences in the spec.
The abstract class integer allocator provides the interface to provide a user-defined derived allocator class for class integer. Classes derived from this class can only be used as static allocators for other classes derived from class integer. Makes the static allocator active for all integer memory allocations.
Thanks for the welcome of all the other enhancements, especially in the area of conversion, to make your integer library easy to use for everyone.
Further, don't get discouraged as your colleagues discuss the meaning of 0, life and the universe while people who actually would use it already understand what 0 means because we have been without, 0, this library for so long.
'Feed a mouse a cookie and he will ask for a glass of milk.'
Creating integers with variable size on the stack, that is in any case something that I will not specify, but users that want to use these tricks can just override the integer_allocator.
Currently you have an integer class which takes an integer_allocator base class. Even though the spec doesn't mention this or I glossed over reading it but you probably are going to provide a heap_integer_allocator class
could be named whatever but exists as the default integer_allocator for
integer class. This way users can just start using the library right away instead creating there own allocator the first time they use this library.
What I was suggesting was not a change to the integer, integer_allocator base class or the currently unnamed heap_integer_allocator! Rather the addition of a stack_integer_allocator<size_t> : public integer_allocator.
The reasons for the library to provide this instead of the end user is as follows: 1) Performance, stack based allocations are faster than heap based and in some field domains one will know the upper limit on size. This generates
need for multiple people wanting to do this especially when performance matters. 2) Standardization, if you foresee that many people are going to need this functionality than your library becomes easier because you can go ahead and provide the class instead of a large unsigned integer of people having to reinvent the wheel and create the exact same class themselves. 3) Maintain ease of use as complexity increases, in just this one area
What I was hoping to be able to do was something like this? integer<stack_allocator<T> > or integer(stack_allocator<T>) or integer<T> where T is the minimum number of bits, minimum number of bytes or minimum number of longs (bits may be better as the internal implementation may very from processor to processor). The implementation is simple because the size of the stack_allocator or stack_integer is allocated at compile time on the stack. As allocate will just return the already allocated memory and deallocate will do nothing. The demand for this is the need/preference for large finite precision numbers. Currently C++ provides the ability to work with small finite numbers and integer provides infinite precision numbers. This addition would fill in the gap between the two with many of the strength and advantages of both worlds without negating the need to be able to go to either extreme. Your code is capable of filling this gap it just needs the ability to limit itself to stack operations on a per instance basis. This request is similar to the differences between std::bitset<T> and boost::bitset. Sure boost::bitset can do everything std::bitset can do but users will still use std::bitset for efficiency when they know the size up front since it is created on the stack and the other is dynamically allocated. Users just want the two to have a common base class which can't currently be done as that will change the std. However as yours is a new library, I was hoping it would handle this need and do it correctly from the beginning. With the current design how would one do this? Deriving from integer_allocator is straight forward but what must one do to a derived integer to use this new allocator? If you do concur that this is a need wouldn't it be good to go ahead and provide an implementation of stack_integer and stack_integer_allocator that can do this so users don't have to keep reinventing the wheel. Further could there be any changes to the allocator architecture to make things easier not from its interface standpoint but from from how it is used and stored to get better reuse especially with all this talk on unsigned integer and modulus integer. I would hate to see stack variants for all three. -----Original Message----- From: Maarten Kronenburg [mailto:M.Kronenburg@inter.nl.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:46 PM To: Jarrad Waterloo Subject: Re: Infinite precision integer draft Jarrad, Thanks for your reply. The default integer_allocator used by integer use the standard POSIX malloc, realloc and free functions. You are right that I should add this remark to the spec document. The making of a heap_allocator is trivial, using HeapCreate and HeapDestroy, and HeapAlloc, HeapReAlloc and HeapFree. But this only works on Win32 systems, so this cannot be added to the spec. Your stack_integer_allocator<size_t>, how would that allocate, reallocate and deallocate look like? Do you have such an implementation ? Or a literature reference where I can find it ? When I have an implementation, then I feel safe to add it to the spec. Regards, Maarten. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jarrad Waterloo" <jwaterloo@dynamicquest.com> To: "'Maarten Kronenburg'" <M.Kronenburg@inter.nl.net>; <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:12 PM Subject: RE: Infinite precision integer draft that the the this
library could suffer from the opposite problem of the standard library. The standard library algorithms was all passing 2 iterators around which allows for maximum flexibility for more complicated scenarios but lacked the overrides like boost Range where you could pass the collection and the algorithm uses begin and end for the more common and simple scenarios. Integer library does the opposite which is mostly good, it provides the heap allocator for the most common and general use but as complexity increases and someone needs stack based allocator the user is left in the lurch and have to right there own, over and over again from user to user. I just believe this library would be more feature complete if it would just go ahead and provide the both implementations up front. 4) Architectural consistency, this library is designed to behave like existing integer types that can be created both on the stack and on the heap.
Sorry for confusing us both! When I say heap I was referring to memory allocated dynamically via the POSIX methods or C++ new/delete. Although
majority of my background has been in a Win32 environment when I deal with standard C++ and boost the word Microsoft doesn't enter into my vocabulary.
I was working/speaking under the mistaken assumption that each instance of integer has its own allocator by type as in the standard library or at runtime as many but not all wish it. As such I thought integer_allocator was an interface or close to one and there was a separate class that implements that interface or abstract class that had the code for the dynamic memory allocations. I totally missed the following sentences in the spec.
The abstract class integer allocator provides the interface to provide a user-defined derived allocator class for class integer. Classes derived from this class can only be used as static allocators for other classes derived from class integer. Makes the static allocator active for all integer memory allocations.
What I was hoping to be able to do was something like this? integer<stack_allocator<T> > or integer(stack_allocator<T>) or integer<T> where T is the minimum number of bits, minimum number of bytes or minimum number of longs (bits may be better as the internal implementation may very from processor to processor). The implementation is simple because the size of the stack_allocator or stack_integer is allocated at compile time on
stack. As allocate will just return the already allocated memory and deallocate will do nothing. The demand for this is the need/preference for large finite precision numbers. Currently C++ provides the ability to work with small finite numbers and integer provides infinite precision numbers. This addition would fill in the gap between the two with many of the strength and advantages of both worlds without negating the need to be able to go to either extreme. Your code is capable of filling this gap it just needs the ability to
itself to stack operations on a per instance basis. This request is similar to the differences between std::bitset<T> and boost::bitset. Sure boost::bitset can do everything std::bitset can do but users will still use std::bitset for efficiency when they know the size up front since it is created on the stack and the other is dynamically allocated. Users just want the two to have a common base class which can't currently be done as that will change the std. However as yours is a new library, I was hoping it would handle this need and do it correctly from the beginning.
With the current design how would one do this? Deriving from integer_allocator is straight forward but what must one do to a derived integer to use this new allocator? If you do concur that this is a need wouldn't it be good to go ahead and provide an implementation of stack_integer and stack_integer_allocator that can do this so users don't have to keep reinventing the wheel. Further could there be any changes to the allocator architecture to make things easier not from its interface standpoint but from from how it is used and stored to get better reuse especially with all this talk on unsigned integer and modulus integer. I would hate to see stack variants for all three.
-----Original Message----- From: Maarten Kronenburg [mailto:M.Kronenburg@inter.nl.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:46 PM To: Jarrad Waterloo Subject: Re: Infinite precision integer draft
Jarrad, Thanks for your reply. The default integer_allocator used by integer use the standard POSIX malloc, realloc and free functions. You are right that I should add this remark to the spec document. The making of a heap_allocator is trivial, using HeapCreate and HeapDestroy, and HeapAlloc, HeapReAlloc and HeapFree. But this only works on Win32 systems, so this cannot be added to the spec. Your stack_integer_allocator<size_t>, how would that allocate, reallocate and deallocate look like? Do you have such an implementation ? Or a literature reference where I can find it ? When I have an implementation, then I feel safe to add it to the spec. Regards, Maarten.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jarrad Waterloo" <jwaterloo@dynamicquest.com> To: "'Maarten Kronenburg'" <M.Kronenburg@inter.nl.net>; <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:12 PM Subject: RE: Infinite precision integer draft
Thanks for the welcome of all the other enhancements, especially in the area of conversion, to make your integer library easy to use for everyone.
Further, don't get discouraged as your colleagues discuss the meaning of 0, life and the universe while people who actually would use it already understand what 0 means because we have been without, 0, this library for so long.
'Feed a mouse a cookie and he will ask for a glass of milk.'
Creating integers with variable size on the stack, that is in any case something that I will not specify, but users that want to use these tricks can just override the integer_allocator.
Currently you have an integer class which takes an integer_allocator
class. Even though the spec doesn't mention this or I glossed over reading it but you probably are going to provide a heap_integer_allocator class that could be named whatever but exists as the default integer_allocator for the integer class. This way users can just start using the library right away instead creating there own allocator the first time they use this
What I was suggesting was not a change to the integer, integer_allocator base class or the currently unnamed heap_integer_allocator! Rather the addition of a stack_integer_allocator<size_t> : public
integer_allocator.
The reasons for the library to provide this instead of the end user is
follows: 1) Performance, stack based allocations are faster than heap based and in some field domains one will know the upper limit on size. This generates
as the
need for multiple people wanting to do this especially when performance matters. 2) Standardization, if you foresee that many people are going to need
Jarrad, The class integer must be run-time polymorph, and therefore the allocator is static and not a template parameter, because a template parameter generates a new type and mixed expressions and assigments would be impossible. This is explained in the document. In the document I will also add an allocated_integer as an example of how an integer derived class with an allocator works. Now the question about the allocator for modular and unsigned integers. As the allocator is not a template parameter, but must be a static allocator used by the allocated_integer functions and operators at runtime, in order to obtain run-time polymorphism for mixed expressions. For the unsigned and modular integers derived from integer, a new class must be derived. So you would derive from integer a allocated_unsigned_integer and an allocated_modular_integer. This is logical, because in their overridden functions and operators, the static allocator is activated, the integer member functions and operators are called, including the ones that make them unsigned or modular, and the static allocator is deactivated. In the document I will specify an allocated_integer allocated_unsigned_integer allocated_modular_integer so that implementations can provide them. As mentioned, users can derive other classes from integer and use a static allocator as well. But these classes will have a static void set_allocator( integer_allocator * ) just as the modular_integer has a static void set_modulus( const integer & ). Why the integer_allocator * ? Because the class itself must delete it, like if it was a static allocator. The user would use this with: allocated_integer::set_allocator( new my_allocator() ); Regards, Maarten. "Jarrad Waterloo" <jwaterloo@dynamicquest.com> wrote in message news:20060531134531.EF485270802E@dqmail.dynamicquest.com... the the limit base library. this
functionality than your library becomes easier because you can go ahead and provide the class instead of a large unsigned integer of people having to reinvent the wheel and create the exact same class themselves. 3) Maintain ease of use as complexity increases, in just this one area this library could suffer from the opposite problem of the standard library. The standard library algorithms was all passing 2 iterators around which allows for maximum flexibility for more complicated scenarios but lacked the overrides like boost Range where you could pass the collection and the algorithm uses begin and end for the more common and simple scenarios. Integer library does the opposite which is mostly good, it provides the heap allocator for the most common and general use but as complexity increases and someone needs stack based allocator the user is left in the lurch and have to right there own, over and over again from user to user. I just believe this library would be more feature complete if it would just go ahead and provide the both implementations up front. 4) Architectural consistency, this library is designed to behave like existing integer types that can be created both on the stack and on the heap.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Maarten Kronenburg <M.Kronenburg@inter.nl.net> wrote:
The class integer must be run-time polymorph, and therefore the allocator is static and not a template parameter, because a template parameter generates a new type and mixed expressions and assigments would be impossible.
I find it as yet another argument against runtime-polymorphic-based design. B.
participants (3)
-
Bronek Kozicki -
Jarrad Waterloo -
Maarten Kronenburg