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 12:02:20

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

I would really like to confirm that, but mail to M. Kronenburg is not
delivered to the mail address attached to his papers. Does someone
know a working e-mail address of him?

Thanks,
Joachim

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