Re: [boost] [xint] Third release is ready, requesting preliminary review

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Third release is ready, requesting preliminary review
From: DE (satan66613_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-01 15:59:28

on 01.05.2010 at 21:56
 Chad Nelson wrote :
>> i meant this: in the followng code (monty.cpp)
>> 
>> 00033 digit_t inverse0(const integer& n) {
>> 00034     // Using the Duss and Kalisk simplification
>> 00035     doubledigit_t x = 2, y = 1;
>> 00036     digit_t n0 = n._get_digit(0);
>> 00037     for (size_t i = 2; i <= bits_per_digit; ++i, x <<= 1)
>> 00038         if (x < ((n0 * y) & ((x << 1) - 1)))
>> 00039             y += x;
>> 00040     return digit_t(x - y);
>> 00041 }

> Ah, I see. POD types in the internals. :-)

not only pod types but any types

>> the variable 'n0' is not modified so it actually is const (and should
>> be declared such)
>> 'x' is not modified in this piece as well

> (It's modified -- look at the end of the "for" line.)

my bad, sorry

>> this is a minor issue and concerns style of coding so it is arguable by
>> definition
>> however scott meyers, andrei alexandrescu and herb sutter recommend to
>> make everything const unless it must be modifyed
>> so you might want to decide to follow this recommendation
>> ...or not

> It sounds like a good practice. It would be useful to catch some typos
> at compile-time, where you use one variable but meant to use a different
> one (something I've done on occasion). And as you said, it does make
> code more readable, so I'll try to adopt now that I know about it.

> But since the compiled code will be identical either way, for POD types,
> I don't think it warrants combing through the code to correct violations
> of it. I'll change them when I find them during refactoring.

you've got it absolutely right

-- 
Pavel
P.S.
if you notice a grammar mistake or weird phrasing in my message
please point it out