Tracking the disussion on n1774 'Big integer library proposal for C++0x' I see there is a lot of controversy about it, and it will probably need much tweaking before (if ever) it is accepted. Wouldn't that be a good idea to have a big integer added to boost so that we can create a 'working practice' before anything gets standarised? I have some preliminary source code, some spare time, and would volunteer to work on it if there's enough interest. cheers, M.
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:30:27 +0100, Marcin Kaliciñski wrote
Tracking the disussion on n1774 'Big integer library proposal for C++0x' I see there is a lot of controversy about it, and it will probably need much tweaking before (if ever) it is accepted.
Wouldn't that be a good idea to have a big integer added to boost so that we can create a 'working practice' before anything gets standarised?
Yes, absolutely!
I have some preliminary source code, some spare time, and would volunteer to work on it if there's enough interest.
That would be great -- please do. Jeff
If boost is serious about big number support, then we should probably be looking at GMP at http://swox.com/gmp/ ... if we haven't already. Mathew ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [boost] Big integer library
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:30:27 +0100, Marcin Kaliciñski wrote
Tracking the disussion on n1774 'Big integer library proposal for C++0x' I see there is a lot of controversy about it, and it will probably need much tweaking before (if ever) it is accepted.
Wouldn't that be a good idea to have a big integer added to boost so that we can create a 'working practice' before anything gets standarised?
Yes, absolutely!
I have some preliminary source code, some spare time, and would volunteer to work on it if there's enough interest.
That would be great -- please do.
Jeff
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Garland | Sent: 28 April 2005 03:40 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: Re: [boost] Big integer library | | On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:30:27 +0100, Marcin Kaliciñski wrote | > Tracking the disussion on n1774 'Big integer library proposal for | > C++0x' I see there is a lot of controversy about it, and it will | > probably need much tweaking before (if ever) it is accepted. | > | > Wouldn't that be a good idea to have a big integer added to | boost so | > that we can create a 'working practice' before anything | gets standarised? | | Yes, absolutely! | | > I have some preliminary source code, some spare time, and would | > volunteer to work on it if there's enough interest. | That would be great -- please do. Paul Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830 +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com
Paul A Bristow wrote:
| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Garland | Sent: 28 April 2005 03:40 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: Re: [boost] Big integer library | | On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:30:27 +0100, Marcin Kaliciñski wrote | > Tracking the disussion on n1774 'Big integer library proposal for | > C++0x' I see there is a lot of controversy about it, and it will | > probably need much tweaking before (if ever) it is accepted. | > | > Wouldn't that be a good idea to have a big integer added to | boost so | > that we can create a 'working practice' before anything | gets standarised? | | Yes, absolutely! | | > I have some preliminary source code, some spare time, and would | > volunteer to work on it if there's enough interest. |
That would be great -- please do.
Here here - I'd be much obliged for such a thing, again please do. Cheers, -- Manfred Doudar MetOcean Engineers 29 April, 2005
"Marcin Kaliciñski" <kalita@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message news:d4p70d$1jd$1@sea.gmane.org...
Tracking the disussion on n1774 'Big integer library proposal for C++0x' I see there is a lot of controversy about it, and it will probably need much tweaking before (if ever) it is accepted.
Wouldn't that be a good idea to have a big integer added to boost so that we can create a 'working practice' before anything gets standarised?
It would be very great :) I have been working on a big integer library, and already showed a preliminary version here at boost, but I haven't had the time to really finish it. I'm graduating in a month, and hope to have some spare time then. See for the initial discussion http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg04191.php and a recent discussion http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg79916.php.
I have some preliminary source code, some spare time, and would volunteer to work on it if there's enough interest.
Of course, don't let previous work stand in the way. I would love to hear new insights, so that the best possible proposal is made. best regards, Richard Peters
"Marcin Kaliciñski" <kalita@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message news:d4p70d$1jd$1@sea.gmane.org...
Tracking the disussion on n1774 'Big integer library proposal for C++0x' I see there is a lot of controversy about it, and it will probably need much tweaking before (if ever) it is accepted.
Wouldn't that be a good idea to have a big integer added to boost so that we can create a 'working practice' before anything gets standarised?
Yes, very much so!
I have some preliminary source code, some spare time, and would volunteer to work on it if there's enough interest.
I think there is a lot of interest, so I think a Boost submission would get a lot of attension. --Beman
Somewhere in the E.U., le 12/05/2005 Bonjour In article <d4p70d$1jd$1@sea.gmane.org>, "Marcin Kaliciñski" <kalita@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
Tracking the disussion on n1774 'Big integer library proposal for C++0x' I see there is a lot of controversy about it, and it will probably need much tweaking before (if ever) it is accepted.
Wouldn't that be a good idea to have a big integer added to boost so that we can create a 'working practice' before anything gets standarised?
I have some preliminary source code, some spare time, and would volunteer to work on it if there's enough interest.
cheers, M.
Just a (belated) "me too" to express my great interest in that topic. Merci Hubert Holin
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:12:51PM +0200, Hubert Holin wrote:
Somewhere in the E.U., le 12/05/2005
Bonjour
In article <d4p70d$1jd$1@sea.gmane.org>, "Marcin Kalici�ski" <kalita@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
Tracking the disussion on n1774 'Big integer library proposal for C++0x' I see there is a lot of controversy about it, and it will probably need much tweaking before (if ever) it is accepted.
Wouldn't that be a good idea to have a big integer added to boost so that we can create a 'working practice' before anything gets standarised?
I have some preliminary source code, some spare time, and would volunteer to work on it if there's enough interest.
cheers, M.
Just a (belated) "me too" to express my great interest in that topic.
Merci
Hubert Holin
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Hi, I missed that too: I'm also VERY, VERY, VERY INTERESTED in having this library in Boost. For example, for one application I've written (a strong random generator for constraint satisfaction problems) the missing Big integer library is now a big problem: The one I used is not standard-compliant, and, though I fixed the syntactical problems, broke down on a 64 bit platform. So I have to replace this library. Orginally, I wanted to use GMP instead, but then their warnings about "miscompilation" and especially that "For GMP 4.1.4, we recommend that you use GCC 3.3.x or older" made me change my mind --- I guess this wouldn't happen with Boost! So I'm in the situation now that this (once working) random generator has to wait for a big integer library (I mean, of high quality -- that's what I expect from Boost). If a big integer library would be available from Boost, I would use it in most of my applications and libraries. Oliver
I think it is a good idea. The limitation of size for integers can be a real pb in certain programs. I actually would like to participate in the developement of this class, if my help can be usefull. Olivier
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 12:30:27AM +0100, Marcin KaliciXski wrote:
Tracking the disussion on n1774 'Big integer library proposal for C++0x' I see there is a lot of controversy about it, and it will probably need much tweaking before (if ever) it is accepted.
Wouldn't that be a good idea to have a big integer added to boost so that we can create a 'working practice' before anything gets standarised?
I have some preliminary source code, some spare time, and would volunteer to work on it if there's enough interest.
The replies indicated some interest in arbitrary long integer / arbitrary precision arithmetic among Boost users and developers. Today I got a call for participation in the `"many digits" friendly competition 2005' organized by Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. To quote from the call for participation: In the Institute for Computing and Information Sciences at Radboud University Nijmegen we will organise a demo/benchmark session for investigating the state of the art in the various implementations of exact real arithmetic. The event will be held on 3-4 October 2005, in conjunction with the Small TYPES workshop on Constructive analysis, types and exact real numbers <http://www.cs.ru.nl/fnds/typesreal/>. I don't have time to pursue this myself but those interested in the topic might also be interested in this event - maybe not with an own submission, but to learn from the experiences others made while implementing arbitrary precision arithmetic. The complete call for participation is available at <url:http://www.cs.ru.nl/~milad/manydigits/CFPar.txt>. Regards Christoph -- http://www.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/TI/Mitarbeiter/cludwig.html LiDIA: http://www.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/TI/LiDIA/Welcome.html
participants (11)
-
Beman Dawes -
Christoph Ludwig -
Hubert Holin -
Jeff Garland -
Manfred Doudar -
Marcin Kalici�ski -
Mathew Robertson -
Oliver Kullmann -
Olivier Grant -
Paul A Bristow -
Richard Peters