Re: [boost] [xint] Boost.XInt formal review

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Boost.XInt formal review
From: Ivan Sorokin (sorokin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-06 05:22:51

On 06.03.2011 05:23, Chad Nelson wrote:

>> I believe that arbitrary precision arithmetic library is very useful.
>> But I don't think that in it's current status XInt is appropriate for
>> boost.
>

After your reply I changes my mind. As I see you had considered all my 
suggestions long before I posted them. If they really lead to 
unavoidable performance penalty I think current implementation is a good 
trade-off.

I vote for inclusion XInt into boost.

>> One more thought about "secure" option. There are no standard
>> containers with this option. I think either both standard containers
>> and integer_t should have such option or both shouldn't have. This is
>> yet another argument for container parametrization.
>
> I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that because
> there are no standard containers with a zero-memory-before-releasing
> option, that the library shouldn't provide one either?
>
Yes. Why integer_t should be an exception?