Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Third release is ready, requesting preliminary review
From: Vicente Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-03 03:39:44

Chad Nelson-2 wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On 05/03/2010 01:28 AM, vicente.botet wrote:
>>>> What is the meaning of flags
>>>> static const flag_t flag_negative = 0x01;
>>>> static const flag_t flag_readonly = 0x02;
>>>> static const flag_t flag_fixedlength = 0x04;
>>> The first is used (in the 'flags' bitfield) to denote a negative number.
>>> The second identifies data_t items that are meant to never be modified
>>> (the zero items assigned when new integers are created without
>>> specifying a value, for instance). The third is used on fixed_integer
>>> types, to tell the base_integer allocation code to use some special
>>> handling for them. [...]
>> I don't understand why any of these informations is not stored on
>> data_t.
> flag_negative isn't stored in data_t because if it were, I'd have to
> make a deep copy of every number when I only want to make it negative
> for a temporary calculation.

Maybe a DSEL could help in this case.

Chad Nelson-2 wrote:
> flag_fixedlength isn't stored in data_t because that would defeat the
> purpose of it, which is to identify a fixed_integer to the allocation
> functions when no data_t has been allocated for it yet.

Maybe this can be stored on fixed interger then?

Chad Nelson-2 wrote:
> flag_readonly isn't stored in data_t because I'd have to store yet
> another variable there to handle it, which would be inefficient because
> I had plenty of room in this really handy flag variable that I already
> had to have in base_integer anyway.

Maybe a DSEL could help in this case. Could you say more when and how this
readonly flag is used?

Chad Nelson-2 wrote:
>> In addition no information must be stored on base integer that
>> concerns fixed_integer. This is a bad design option, IMHO.
> And IMNSHO it isn't. Please give me the courtesy that you would offer
> any professional that you meet in the physical world, and assume that I
> have a good reason for every choice I've made until proven otherwise.

I'm afraid. I was also tired and should go to sleep before. I should just
request you to explain the rationale behind that.

Chad Nelson-2 wrote:
> I know I'm overreacting, and that I shouldn't answer e-mails like this
> when I'm tired. I do appreciate that I asked you guys to do this, and
> that you're only trying to make it better. But please also remember that
> it's a hell of a lot easier to criticize something than to do it
> yourself. 'Nuf said.

You are right. It is easier to criticize than to do. I know the critics you
have received were together with good constructive suggestions and than
both have help to improved your library already. I hope this will be yet the


View this message in context:
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at