Re: [boost] [xint] Boost.XInt formal review

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Boost.XInt formal review
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-05 14:44:30

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:24:18 -0500
"Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Chad Nelson wrote:
>>> If I might make a suggestion, the XInt library interface could be
>>> simplified by removing all notions of RNG quality (strong, random,
>>> etc.) and become more in line with the goal of providing a POD-like
>>> data type.
>>
>> Yes, but it would require pulling Boost.Random into the example code,
>> which would complicate it.
>
> I don't think that's an unwarranted burden.

Except that extraneous code in examples dilutes their effectiveness, by
forcing the person reading them to deal with more code. The extra
burden might be small, but it's definitely there. And using
Boost.Random properly requires more than the single line of code that
those generators do.

I've got those classes anyway, from an earlier iteration. No reason to
get rid of them if they could still be useful to people using the
library.
-- 
Chad Nelson
Oak Circle Software, Inc.
*
*
*