Subject: Re: [boost] New Boost.XInt Library, request preliminary review
From: DE (satan66613_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-01 12:13:57
on 01.04.2010 at 4:10
Chad Nelson wrote :
>> i vote for quiet NaN since operations are throwing already by default
>> but actually the original design was sane too
>> for example
>> xint::integer i;
>> while ((i = foo())==NaN) //doing some important work
>> ask_user_what_to_do(); //failed! worth it to try again?
>> i think this is conscious [...]
> If you mean, you think it was a conscious decision on my part: yes,
> you're right. That's how I intended it to be used.
my point was that the use case described in the example seems to be
our views on this library appear to be curiously close...
-- Pavel P.S. if you notice a grammar mistake or weird phrasing in my message please point it out
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk