-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
ZNIrrep
for larger N
#31
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Have you checked the show methods after this change? I think I opted for signed integers because the unsigned integers are printed in hexadecimal representation, which is not very nice. For me it is also fine to just change from |
In case printing is the only issue, would it be possible to use a |
That will fail if you are really using Technically, it might be correct for exactly |
I'll fix the printing, note that I already included an accessor function |
It seems to have finally happened, someone has a use for
ZNIrrep{N>64}
.Not calling any names, (uhum, @AFeuerpfeil, uhum).
I took the time to refactor to unsigned integers, and additionally to properly do modular arithmetic when overflow can occur, this might be overkill but now we can do
ZNIrrep{256}
with 8 bits.I have no clue whether or not this counts as breaking though?