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

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Boost.XInt formal review
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-09 11:18:10

2011/3/9 Chad Nelson <chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden]>:
> 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.

you are rehabilitated ;-) There are 3 papers N1692, N2020, N2143 on
the topic and in the *latest* paper
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2143.pdf

the functions is_odd(), is_even(), sign() are member functions just as
in your implementation! So you adapted to the upcoming standard here.
It would be better for you to add a reference to the latest paper to
your docs and refer to it next time :)

Cheers,
Joachim

-- 
Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl]
http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de