From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-04 15:28:50
It is traditional to respond directly to the review summary
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/message/18007, so that reviewers know
that all concerns have at least been examined. Would you mind doing that?
Also, although the future of these libraries is now partly in your hands, it
would be best to minimize large changes between the review and the time that
the code is first integrated into boost's CVS tree. Large enhancements
(overflow checking is an example) ought to appear in a second revision, just
to preserve revision history.
David Abrahams, C++ library designer for hire
C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daryle Walker" <darylew_at_[hidden]>
To: "Boost" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 3:46 PM
Subject: [boost] Reaction to dlw_int.zip review
> Additions I've made since the review (by comparing the review version 
> with the current version ).
> * Moved the new integer material to match the new-age directory
> and added a forward declaration header <boost/integer_fwd.hpp>. Adjusted
> "index.htm" and <boost/integer.hpp> to match.
> * Re-did "integer_test.cpp" again. (Hope the pre-processor library
> out soon....)
> * Renamed "static_lb" to "static_log2" in any file-names, #includes,
> (template) names, and documentation.
> * Need MSVC fixes/workarounds
> * Did other general fixes/improvements
> Daryle Walker
> Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
> darylew AT mac DOT com
> Info: http://www.boost.org Unsubscribe:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk