Bill, Bill Seymour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I've upload fixdec23.zip to the Yahoo files section. > > I made some changes that Jens suggested to allow compiling with > Comeau and gcc; and I've made the is_bounded and is_modulo fixes > that Fernando suggested along with interoperatability with > unsigned as well as int. > Great,
> Fernando, > > I think that max_scale needs to be a constant expression > because it's used in the definition of numeric_limits<decimal>: > > BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(int, digits=boost::fixdec::max_scale); > BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(int, digits10=boost::fixdec::max_scale); > Couldn't these be implemented right in terms of numeric_limits<int_type>::digits? > And I think I'm right about numeric_limits<>::digits10. I believe > it's intended to be mean that, if the value is N, then /all/ N-digit > numbers can be represented. numeric_limits<decimal>::digits10 can't > be 19 because only a subset of 19-digit numbers are representable. > > Also, I think that your statement: > > > > ... __int64 support 18 digits at most. > > > is factually incorrect. Your implementation's __int64 should support > anything up to 10**63 - 1 or (with commas as thousands separators) > 9,223,372,036,854,775,807. That's a 19-digit number. > You're right on both accounts. All numbers with 'N=digits10' digits should be representable, including N-nines. That explains why numeric_limits<__int64>::digits10 is 18 even though numeric_limits<__int64>::max() is a 19 digit number. The leading digit, being a partial digit, cannot be accounted for in 'digits10'. Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
