On Monday, 5 May 2014 at 17:22:58 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
Am Mon, 5 May 2014 09:39:30 -0700
schrieb "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d"
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>:
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
That experimental package idea that was discussed months ago
comes to my mind again. Add that thing as exp.rational and
have people report bugs or shortcomings to the original
author. When it seems to be usable by everyone interested it
can move into Phobos proper after the formal review (that
includes code style checks, unit tests etc. that mere users
don't take as seriously).
And same objections still remain.
