Re: [boost] [Review] XInt Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] XInt Review
From: Joel Falcou (joel.falcou_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-04 10:51:04

On 04/03/11 16:20, Marsh Ray wrote:

> To the extent that Boost is a proving ground for things suitable for
> possible inclusion in a future C++ standard, it seems to me that a
> review of something like XInt (in particular due to its general utility)
> ought to focus on the quality of the interface rather than a specific
> implementation.

I agree

> If the interface really does prescribe the implementation with a great
> deal of specificity, then in my view it should not be adopted as a library.

I disagree. People also see boost as a repository of staet of the art 
way of implementing things. Library like XInt comes with an a priori 
expectations of performances, whcih, currently, it does not deliver.

> Is that not prescribing an implementation?

It is. Now, i dont see why I should not express opinion on how to do 
something if said specifications actually helps the overall quality of 
the library. It is as prescribing as askign to use the n.log(n).log(n) 
algorithm instead of the trivial one for operator*

> A bigint facility that strained the limits of my compiler and pushed
> compile times through the roof is not useful to me.

Are you compiling with MSVC6 or g++-2.95.2 ?
Sarcasm aside, compile time is a problem for compiler vendor.

> What about just working out a bigint concept with a straightforward
> implementation that permitted, but did not require, expression templates?

Expression enabled code is not something you add on top of another 
design like this. It is a concrete component of the design from the start.