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 11:44:03

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 17:18:10 +0100
Joachim Faulhaber <afojgo_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>>>>>> 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.

That thump that you just heard was the sound of my jaw hitting the
ground. I didn't know about the later papers, so I can't claim any
credit for that. (I can't download either of the new-to-me ones at the
moment either, apparently due to a server glitch.)

If it weren't for the date on the page that lists them, I might think
that Mr. Kronenburg took inspiration from XInt! :-)

> It would be better for you to add a reference to the latest paper to
> your docs and refer to it next time :)

I've already added it to the docs. Thanks for letting me know about
them.
-- 
Chad Nelson
Oak Circle Software, Inc.
*
*
*