On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 03:55:12PM +0000, bearophile via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Andrei Alexandrescu: > > >I think the "needs to support BigInt" argument is not a blocker - we > >can release std.rational to only support built-in integers, and then > >adjust things later to expand support while keeping backward > >compatibility. I do think it's important that BigInt supports > >appropriate traits to be recognized as an integral-like type. > > Bigints support is necessary for usable rationals, but I agree this > can't block their introduction in Phobos if the API is good and > adaptable to the successive support of bigints.
Yeah, rationals without bigints will overflow very easily, causing many usability problems in user code. > >If you, Joseph, or both would want to put std.rational again through > >the review process I think it should get a fair shake. I do agree > >that a lot of persistence is needed. > > Rationals are rather basic (important) things, so a little of > persistence is well spent here :-) [...] I agree, and support pushing std.rational through the queue. So, please don't give up, we need it get it in somehow. :) T -- I see that you JS got Bach.