Walter

How hard would it be to support larger than 64-bit integers? It'd be nice to have arbitrarily large integers, though I expect there are various important objections to this.

Matthew

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> a écrit dans le message news: bj7enj$e4m$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter
>
> How hard would it be to support larger than 64-bit integers? It'd be nice
to
> have arbitrarily large integers, though I expect there are various
important
> objections to this.
>
> Matthew

You mean big interger primitive ? What about implementing it over object like in java ?

-- Nicolas Repiquet

A lot of grief in the code generator <g>. I think this would be a proper candidate for a UDT.

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:bj7enj$e4m$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter
>
> How hard would it be to support larger than 64-bit integers? It'd be nice
to
> have arbitrarily large integers, though I expect there are various
important
> objections to this.
>
> Matthew
>
>

> > How hard would it be to support larger than 64-bit integers? It'd be
nice
> to
> > have arbitrarily large integers, though I expect there are various
> important
> > objections to this.
> >
> > Matthew
>
> You mean big interger primitive ? What about implementing it over object like in java ?

What about it? (Not sure what your comment means. ;/ )

> A lot of grief in the code generator <g>. I think this would be a proper candidate for a UDT.

Does that apply to larger fixed size integers in addition to arbitrary large integers? Just giving us 128-bits would be a killer?

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:bj8ail$1n3d$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > A lot of grief in the code generator <g>. I think this would be a proper candidate for a UDT.
>
> Does that apply to larger fixed size integers in addition to arbitrary
large
> integers? Just giving us 128-bits would be a killer?

With 64 bit registers, it would be trivial. With register quads, though, it's a significant problem.

whats udt ?

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bj89ai$1l9g$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> A lot of grief in the code generator <g>. I think this would be a proper candidate for a UDT.
>
> "Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:bj7enj$e4m$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Walter
> >
> > How hard would it be to support larger than 64-bit integers? It'd be
nice
> to
> > have arbitrarily large integers, though I expect there are various
> important
> > objections to this.
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> >
>
>

User defined type. Such as std::complex in C++.

"Charles Sanders" <sanders-consulting@comcast.net> wrote in message news:bj8d44$1qvo$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> whats udt ?
>
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bj89ai$1l9g$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > A lot of grief in the code generator <g>. I think this would be a proper candidate for a UDT.
> >
> > "Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:bj7enj$e4m$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > Walter
> > >
> > > How hard would it be to support larger than 64-bit integers? It'd be
> nice
> > to
> > > have arbitrarily large integers, though I expect there are various
> > important
> > > objections to this.
> > >
> > > Matthew
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> a écrit dans le message news: bj89il$1llr$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> What about it? (Not sure what your comment means. ;/ )

Scuse my english =)

Doesn't something like this suit your needs ? :

class BigInteger {

    private byte[] data;

    BigInteger opadd( ...
    BigInteger opsub( ...

    ...

}


BigInteger a = BigInteger("123140090234823441284120");
BigInteger b = BigInteger("43421394023949342");
BigInteger c = a * b;

....

-- Nicolas Repiquet

> > What about it? (Not sure what your comment means. ;/ )
>
> Scuse my english =)

No need. Your English is infinitely better than my French. Je suis tres desole

> Doesn't something like this suit your needs ? :
>
> class BigInteger {
>
>     private byte[] data;
>
>     BigInteger opadd( ...
>     BigInteger opsub( ...
>
>     ...
>
> }
>
>
> BigInteger a = BigInteger("123140090234823441284120");
> BigInteger b = BigInteger("43421394023949342");
> BigInteger c = a * b;

I guess it depends on what I mean by my needs. ;)

I'd like bigger integers to not be heap based, and to look and feel like the currently supported fundamental integers. However, I recognise that there's a practical limit to this, which may already have been reached with long.