Subject: CGAL users discussion list
List archive
- From: Benoit Hudson <>
- To:
- Subject: [cgal-discuss] which number types are actually exact?
- Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 16:15:03 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=JA1/kaAJqooa7WcBv79rCG7yIPTzwXNmMhuwcYaSu8AKhAws/oW3D1AUDkY7RGXm6S z6/pVDVkCHuJZ2WEmldzJGT16S9B7q81LMmk7fgo9DLS5wCSoN1Eb1f3ITvn8cbnzOHO ClKdKiXxvtBbuWoN04rf+4VltqbSUFbXxq3To=
The documentation for Gmpzf indicates that it's exact. However, it
seems to provide a division operation. This tripped me up when I used
it with some code that uses division.
Which types can I rely on to refuse to compile inexact operations?
-- Benoît
- [cgal-discuss] which number types are actually exact?, Benoit Hudson, 05/01/2009
- Re: [cgal-discuss] which number types are actually exact?, Sylvain Pion, 05/02/2009
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.