dlw_int/dlw_gcd review summary

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-30 21:39:11

As I reported several days ago, Daryle Walker's dlw_int and dlw_gcd
submissions were unanimously accepted.

Here are a few of the comments which I found most salient. Daryle of course
has the option to ignore any of these, but I'd advise against it. Consensus
makes the world go around ;-)

------------- dlw_int -------------

Eric Ford:

static_lb should probably be called "static_log2"
It might be worth considering providing coverage for long long types on
compilers that can handle it.

Fernando Cacciola:

There are broken links and a typo in the documentation
Consider using an unsigned type for values specifying a number of bits.
Consider supplying a separate header for forward declarations (presumably to
reduce compilation dependencies).

Ed Brey:

None of this code compiles with VC6sp5. As review manager, I suggest you
/consider/ recruiting someone to help you port it. Although this compiler
has numerous conformance problems, enough people use it that your library
will have a considerably smaller audience than it otherwise might.

--------------- dlw_gcd -------------

Fernando Cacciola:

The use of the unary '+' operator adds unneccessary dependencies; consider
removing it.

Ed Brey:

The same comments apply to dlw_gcd w.r.t. VC6sp5 as apply to dlw_int.
Ed also had these documentation corrections to offer. Daryle, I strongly
suggest you follow up on them:

"GCD Function Object:
- even if any -> even if either
- should (partially) specialize -> should specialize [since full
specialization
is fine; the word "partial" confused me more than it helped].
In the paragraph describing usage of Compile-Time Extrema Templates, Usage,
two
sentences are comma splices (run-on sentences)."

Hubert Holin:

M. Holin had several remarks about this submission which are detailed enough
that I won't post them here. They were posted in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/message/17852. There is also a short
ensuing thread that is worth following. Since Daryle never responded to this
thread on the boost list, I would very much like to know that he has at
least considered the issues. As Jens suggested in the thread, if no change
to the library results, it would be good to cover some of the issues in the
documentation, to show that they've been considered.

-------------------------------------

Once again, congratulations, Daryle!

===================================================
  David Abrahams, C++ library designer for hire
 resume: http://users.rcn.com/abrahams/resume.html

        C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org)
          email: david.abrahams_at_[hidden]
===================================================