Re: [boost] [xint] Question about suitability, portability, and "Boostiness"

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Question about suitability, portability, and "Boostiness"
From: Domagoj Saric (domagoj.saric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-16 10:25:59

"Chad Nelson" <chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:4BC642FF.4040803_at_gmail.com...
>> OTOH, it would be great if you could separate the core 'big int'/math
>> logic from the storage/allocation logic, for example have:
>> - a base 'math handling' class with functions that all take the
>> actual location and size of the number as parameters
>> - a wrapping template class(es) that can be configured with policies
>> whether to use/work with fixed sized buffers/numbers (thus no memory
>> allocation, thus no exception handling code, thus maximally lean
>> code) or dynamically sized buffers (with or without SBOs, deep or
>> shallow copies, reference counting etc etc...)...
>
> Unifying everything like that could be interesting, in both the
> "fascinating" and "difficult" meanings of the word. I've put it on my
> to-do list, I'll see if I can find a way to do it.

I'm sure boost.devel and comp.lang.c++ would provide a helping hand for most 
implementation problems ;)
In any way, going with the separation of the 'core' and 'storage' logic right 
from the start would be a good idea IMO, even if you provide only one storage 
logic/policy in the first run...it will help/force you into a better design 
(that decouples orthogonal problem domains) and enables easier extensibility and 
configurability later...;)

--
"What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual
devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from
one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate."
Neil Postman