Re: [boost] [boost::endian] Summary of discussion #1

Subject: Re: [boost] [boost::endian] Summary of discussion #1
From: Tomas Puverle (tomas.puverle_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-04 10:29:18

> Remember that this thread has been about Tomas' proposal, which might be
merged with Beman's library or
> might be proposed as an alternative.  The current interface isn't critical to
that discussion.

Which is why I've effectively withdrawn from the discussion now, as this thread
was hijacked.

> I'm trying to accommodate the discussion, in this and related threads, in
which many of us noted the
> inefficiency of the arithmetic operators and hence the need for something like
Beman's boost::endian
> without those operators.  

Code which encourages bad coding habits/inefficient code shouldn't be in boost,
full stop.

Having the arithmetic operators on endian types is a completely wrong separation
of concerns - it's akin to throwing away types and writing all code just using
void pointers.

I don't see how Vincente fails to see this.