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

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Boost.XInt formal review
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-07 11:57:18

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 09:51:43 -0500
"Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>>>> Yes, but it would require pulling Boost.Random into the example
>>>> code, which would complicate it.
>>>
>>> I don't think that's an unwarranted burden.
>>
>> Except that extraneous code in examples dilutes their effectiveness,
>> by forcing the person reading them to deal with more code.
>
> That's certainly true, but it applies to your classes, too, only now
> you must document and maintain them.

That moves the burden to me. I'm willing to accept that, if it makes
the learning curve easier on the person trying to use the library.

>> The extra burden might be small, but it's definitely there. And
>> using Boost.Random properly requires more than the single line of
>> code that those generators do.
>
> That's a legitimate reason, but then you can make yours part of the
> example code and document them as helpers that simplify the rest of
> the example code.  That would make the example bigger, but if that
> code was still factored out into separate, nicely commented files and
> was merely referenced with a brief explanatory comment in the example,
> it would permit you to keep the main part of the example simple
> without making the random code part of the library proper.

And if the random code is separated from the rest of the library and
segregated to its own headers, which it almost is already, it can be
pulled in with a single #include in both the examples and any client
use that deems it sufficient. That's what I'm aiming for right now.
-- 
Chad Nelson
Oak Circle Software, Inc.
*
*
*