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

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Boost.XInt formal review
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-09 10:22:00

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 22:57:19 +0100
Joachim Faulhaber <afojgo_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>>>>> - is_odd, is_even, sign, hex_digits, is_nan: These are all member
>>>>> functions with no same-named free function...which makes me wonder
>>>>> why these were chosen to be member functions while the likes of
>>>>> getbit, setbit, is_prime, etc. were chosen to be strictly free
>>>>> functions.
>>>>
>>>> Because n1692, the paper presented to the C++ Standards Committee
>>>> in 2004 that I based XInt's interface on, has them there.
>
> Nope, I just looked at the paper, they are free standing functions
> there. And they are named without the is_ prefix:

<sigh> My statement was true when I originally wrote the code. I didn't
realize that the later changes took it so far away from the original
design. Thanks for the correction.
-- 
Chad Nelson
Oak Circle Software, Inc.
*
*
*