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

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Question about suitability, portability, and "Boostiness"
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-16 17:14:53

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/16/2010 10:25 AM, Domagoj Saric wrote:

>> 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 ;)

Oh, no doubt. :-) I think I've figured out a way to do it though. It may
be a few days before I have the time to implement it and see how it works.

> 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...;)

Far too late to do it "right from the start," I've got a working
implementation already (and have since before I introduced myself to
this list). It doesn't allow for fixed-size integers yet though.
- -- 
Chad Nelson
Oak Circle Software, Inc.
*
*
*
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkvI00oACgkQp9x9jeZ9/wTSggCggPn6VGQDAoFV36UjqRcFc5c2
zY4An3wda0L/LvfEkRpT5cjI4kj+FGMb
=bLrm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----