[marcosdumay]

It's best if your parser fails.

Serde has an interface that allows failing. That one should fail. There is also another that panics, and AFAIK it will automatically panic on any parser that fails.

Do not try to handle huge values, do not pretend your parser is total, and do not pretend it's a correct value.

If you want to create an specialized parser that handles huge numbers, that's great. But any general one must fail on them.

[akubera]

This isn't about parsing so much as letting the users do "dangerous" math operations. The obvious one is diving by zero, but when the library offers arbitrary precision, addition becomes dangerous with regard to allocating all the digits between a small and large value

  1e10 + 1e-10 = 10000000000.0000000001
  1e10000000000000000000 + 1e-10000000000000000000 = ...

It's tough to know where to draw the lines between "safety", "speed", and "functionality" for the user.

[EDIT]: Oh I see, fix the parser to disallow such large numbers from entering the system in the first place, then you don't have to worry about adding them together. Yeah that could be a good first step towards safety. Though, I don't know how to parametrize the serde call.

[kccqzy]

If you are using a library with this kind of number representation, computing any rational number with a repeating decimal representation will use up all your memory. 1/3=0.33333… It will keep allocating memory to store infinite copies of the digit 3. (In practice it stores it using binary representation but you get the idea.)

[akubera]

For the Rust crate, there is already an arbitrary limit (defaults to 100 digits) for "unbounded operations" like square_root, inverting, division. That's a compile time constant. And there's a Context object for runtime-configuration you can set with a precision (stop after `prec` digits).

But for addition, the idea is to give the complete number if you do `a + b`, otherwise you could use the context to keep the numbers within your `ctx.add(a, b)`. But after the discussions here, maybe this is too unsafe... and it should use the default precision (or a slightly larger one) in the name of safety? With a compile time flag to disable it? hmm...