On 1/23/15 4:44 AM, ixid wrote:
On Thursday, 22 January 2015 at 16:41:49 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
Playing with factorial implementations, as you do. I had a D
implementation using ulong. Not sensible obviously since overflow is a
bit of a problem. But the code worked, as did the tests. Now converting
to BigInt and…
The standard explicit iteration form uses a loop:
for(i; 2..n+1)
for n = 0 or 1 this loop doesn't loop since the range is [,). However
for BigInt:
for(i; two..n + one)
the loop starts at 0 and just keeps on going. This is clearly not good.
Am I having a mental breakdown or is this a real bug?
In general it feels as if BigInt needs more work as it doesn't
work with simple generic code in too many cases. Templates get
confused by invocation with a literal and a BigInt for example
when it should have a single type. Literals feel too strongly
typed or too weakly implicitly convertible.
This is not a BigInt problem, it's an inconsistency with foreach range.
See my earlier post.
-Steve
