• Rob T (3/3) Jul 08 2022 https://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.10914.1566237225.29801.digitalmars-...
• Era Scarecrow (14/17) Jul 10 2022 There was a discussion on this not long ago. Walter tried
• max haughton (3/8) Jul 10 2022 Note that you're replying to a message containing a link to the
• Steven Schveighoffer (20/46) Jul 10 2022 So here is what happened:
• Salih Dincer (6/16) Jul 11 2022 Steven is right, it's actually a vicious circle! Because as long

Rob T <alanb ucora.com> writes:

https://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.10914.1566237225.29801.digitalmars-d-learn puremagic.com

In case someone comes across this old thread

https://dlang.org/phobos/core_int128.html

Era Scarecrow <rtcvb32 yahoo.com> writes:

On Friday, 8 July 2022 at 15:32:44 UTC, Rob T wrote:
 https://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.10914.1566237225.29801.digitalmars-d-learn puremagic.com

 In case someone comes across this old thread

 https://dlang.org/phobos/core_int128.html

There was a discussion on this not long ago. Walter tried 
implementing it recently too, though I'm guessing he gave up.

https://forum.dlang.org/thread/wuiurmxvqjcuybfipvqj forum.dlang.org

There's multiple libraries, one of which i wrote which tries to 
address this issue.

  One thing you can try doing is using BigInt, and then reducing 
to 128bit if/when you need to store the result. Apparently a 
number of compilers and back-ends already know how to handle 
128bit types (*and maybe larger*), but it's a matter of just 
putting it in the D frontend so it generates the appropriate 
calls.

https://github.com/d-gamedev-team/gfm/blob/master/integers/gfm/integers/wideint.d

https://github.com/rtcvb32/Side-Projects/tree/master/arbitraryint

max haughton <maxhaton gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 11 July 2022 at 00:19:23 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
 On Friday, 8 July 2022 at 15:32:44 UTC, Rob T wrote:
 [...]

 There was a discussion on this not long ago. Walter tried 
 implementing it recently too, though I'm guessing he gave up.

 [...]

Note that you're replying to a message containing a link to the 
implementation that is in the standard library today.

Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy gmail.com> writes:

On 7/10/22 8:19 PM, Era Scarecrow wrote:
 On Friday, 8 July 2022 at 15:32:44 UTC, Rob T wrote:
 https://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.10914.1566237225.29801.digitalmars-d
learn puremagic.com 


 In case someone comes across this old thread

 https://dlang.org/phobos/core_int128.html

 
 There was a discussion on this not long ago. Walter tried implementing 
 it recently too, though I'm guessing he gave up.
 
 https://forum.dlang.org/thread/wuiurmxvqjcuybfipvqj forum.dlang.org
 
 There's multiple libraries, one of which i wrote which tries to address 
 this issue.
 
   One thing you can try doing is using BigInt, and then reducing to 
 128bit if/when you need to store the result. Apparently a number of 
 compilers and back-ends already know how to handle 128bit types (*and 
 maybe larger*), but it's a matter of just putting it in the D frontend 
 so it generates the appropriate calls.
 
 https://github.com/d-gamedev-team/gfm/blob/master/integers/gf
/integers/wideint.d 
 
 
 https://github.com/rtcvb32/Side-Projects/tree/master/arbitraryint

So here is what happened:

1. User found an old thread (2019) asking if there was a 128-bit integer.
2. User noticed that there's a new implementation for 128-bit integers.
3. User replied to the thread indicating that there is an actual 
implementation now.
4. D forum software prompted user to create a new thread because it's 
really old.
5. The post you see above.

Now, this is one *actual use case* where I think it's correct to 
resurrect a 3-year-old thread. Because the new reply actually isn't 
connected to the old thread at all, except by reference in the new 
thread. So someone finding the old thread will *not* see this reply 
unless they also search for any newer replies.

It makes me wonder, when you reply to an old thread and the forum 
software suggests instead to create a new thread referencing the old 
thread, if the forum software shouldn't put a link in the old thread to 
the new thread so those who find the old thread see there are newer 
replies to it?

-Steve

Salih Dincer <salihdb hotmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 11 July 2022 at 02:49:52 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
 So here is what happened:

 1. User found an old thread (2019) asking if there was a 
 128-bit integer.
 2. User noticed that there's a new implementation for 128-bit 
 integers.
 3. User replied to the thread indicating that there is an 
 actual implementation now.
 4. D forum software prompted user to create a new thread 
 because it's really old.
 5. The post you see above.

Steven is right, it's actually a vicious circle!  Because as long 
as we can't add 1 to ulong.max effortlessly (I guess it's called 
front end?), these discussions will continue...

SDB 79