Re: [boost] [xint] Boost.Move vs Copy-on-Write timings

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Boost.Move vs Copy-on-Write timings
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-04 11:49:43

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

On 05/04/2010 07:22 AM, Stewart, Robert wrote:

>> That might indeed be a better design. And if I do adopt the CRTP
>> design, it might be the only way, since if I understand it
>> correctly, there won't be a non-template base class that's shared
>> by all of the integer types anymore.
> 
> Using CRTP doesn't preclude a non-templated base class. It would be 
> the base of the class template with its derivate as a parameterizing
> type.

If I understand it correctly, then yes, I could use a non-templated base
class, but that base class wouldn't be usable the way that base_integer
is used now, for the parameters to the functions that implement the math
operations, so that those functions could be shared between all three
types. Or am I missing something?
- -- 
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/

iEYEARECAAYFAkvgQhcACgkQp9x9jeZ9/wST/gCgpq0X9wt8JW8Vs1jo6G9y1j9F
gbgAoMPV0cpJ5PoLX4LE7N2LEQt7pmPk
=DdRu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----