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

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Third release is ready, requesting preliminary review
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-03 13:52:55

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

On 05/03/2010 01:28 PM, vicente.botet wrote:

>>> It's not really feasible to push it to the derived classes, since
>>> it would involve a lot of duplicate code. The memory management
>>> is almost completely identical between all of the integer types,
>>> so it makes more sense to have it in a base class.
> 
> You need to mut the minimal part on the derived part, but don't add
> to much on the base class.

The usual way to do that is via virtual functions. I've been trying to
avoid virtual functions in the base_integer class, for efficiency's
sake; the intermediary class mentioned below is intended to solve the
problem without need of them.

>>> However, as I mentioned yesterday, I've found a need to separate
>>> the memory management functions from the base class anyway. I
>>> plan to move them into an intermediary class, something that
>>> inherits from base_integer, and that all the derived classes
>>> inherit from.
> 
> Ths should not solve the problem as both integer and fixed will
> inherit from this intermediary class.

Of course they will. That's the whole point. What *is* the problem then,
that a possibly-templated intermediate class wouldn't solve it?
- -- 
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/

iEYEARECAAYFAkvfDXUACgkQp9x9jeZ9/wR2EgCgjawz2DK6po8sTvr6rGJsLmht
OdUAoOWue/qsa8kPNyFmZ8AN9khTGXHD
=yGqC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----