Re: [boost] [ongoing review of binary_int] reviewers for small utilitywanted

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-24 12:22:38

From: "Paul A Bristow" <pbristow_at_[hidden]>
> 
> Like others, I suspect, I have hesitated before expressing views on these
> useful utilities, as I have no strong views or knowledge, except an
> incredulity that the LANGUAGE should not have a way of specifying binary
> input - and that there that this hasn't been mentioned for C++0x.  Surely
> binary has always been MUCH more useful than octal?

Ditto.

> Having briefly perused both offerings, and read expert views on them, I
> conclude that neither is in a polished state, but that both have their
> merits, and I agree that there is room for BOTH in Boost, and no comelling
> reason to make a choice.
> 
> I therefore support acceptance of BOTH, subject to MAJOR improvement of
> documentation, examples, rationale, including the pros and cons, and cross
> reference to the 'other way of doing it'.

I came to the same conclusion, now that I've read through the
review threads on the two libraries.  My question was why not
provide both means in one library?  Those that like the balance
of forces in the template version better can use that version.
Those that prefer the balance in the macro version can use that
version.

Thus, the two need to be merged inasmuch as possible.  At the
very least, the documentation can be merged and tradeoffs can be
presented to allow for an informed choice between the versions.

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;