Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #6113

Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad...

Show all headers | View raw

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

> On 30/12/15 17:19, David Brown wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You didn't get as far as Python, I take it.
>
> No. I would in any case have chosen PHP for my 'P' language, but from
> what you say below it seems that Python would have been the more
> interesting choice.
>
>> In Python, the integer
>> types just get as big as you need (until you run out of time or memory).
>>   So to a large extent you can assume your integers really are
>> mathematical integers, and add them as much as you want.  (So "unsigned"
>> integers don't really exist.)
>
> What if I wanted to construct a candidate for a large prime? The usual
> way to do this is to pick a number of bits, set the top and bottom
> bits, and then arbitrarily assign other bits (either setting or
> clearing them, as dictated by some entropy source). Then one applies
> Miller-Rabin a few times, and adds 2 if any of the tests
> fail. Traditionally one uses an array of unsigned char for this, but
> if you don't /have/ unsigned char, or indeed any unsigned type,
> presumably you could still do this with code such as:
>
> candidate = 1 << (bitcount - 1);
> candidate |= 1;
> for i = 1 to bitcount - 2
>   candidate |= getrandomnumber(0,1) << i;
>
> ?

Yes (though I'd probably set the bits in larger chucks).  In actual
Python:

    candidate = 1 << (bitcount - 1);
    candidate |= 1;
    for i in range(1, bitcount - 2):
        candidate |= random.randint(0,1) << i;

> (I realise I'm moving away from signed/unsigned here!)

-- 
Ben.

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-29 20:31 +0000
  Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-12-29 21:20 +0000
  Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-29 23:13 +0100
    Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-29 22:19 +0000
      Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 09:56 +0100
        Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 13:28 +0000
          Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 14:55 +0100
            Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 16:32 +0000
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 18:17 +0100
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:01 +0000
          Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 15:48 +0000
            Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 16:35 +0000
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 18:19 +0100
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 17:39 +0000
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:26 +0000
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-12-30 18:32 +0100
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 19:55 +0000
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:15 +0000
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 22:00 +0000
      Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-31 10:16 +1300

csiph-web