Re: [boost] [xint] quick review

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] quick review
From: Domagoj Saric (domagoj.saric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-14 05:35:18

"Chad Nelson" <chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:20110312020807.3aa7c86f_at_ubuntu...
> The whole point of the library is unlimited-size integers. I plan to
> improve the fixed-size integers, but they are not the primary focus of
> the library.

Then my acceptance vote remains a firm no...not just because such a library 
will not fulfil my needs or satisfy my notion of a 'proper implementation' 
but because you seem to fixed on the idea of adding a library to Boost that 
primarily suits your needs in spite of objective and validly argued demands 
from the Boost community. Your 'whole point of the library' is exactly that, 
 >your< point, I did not see any reviewer agreeing with you on that point. 
All of this makes the library not Boost.XInt but ChadNelson.XInt...

And why exactly do you refuse to treat fixed-size integers 'properly and 
equally'? So far the only reasons I could find are:
 - you have no need for them - a priori irrelevant if you want inclusion in 
Boost
 - you do not have or do not want to spend time 'doing it right' - if you 
listened to advice, various people repeatedly already gave you way back in 
the earlier iterations of the library, to decouple orthogonal concepts 
(namely algorithms from data storage) it would have been trivial to add 
fixed-size support (i.e. almost as simple as choosing between boost::array 
and std::vector). Probably a fraction of the time spent arguing about it 
(and coming up with pointless arguments like that of a 'performant swap')...

The argument against separating algorithms so far has been that it would 
expose a wider public interface with the addition of SW's arguments against 
STL-like algorithms specifically. However, none of those arguments apply to 
the sole idea of algorithm extraction as this does not in any way imply that 
you have to make them public or STL-like...They can still remain an internal 
implementation detail...

The fact that you refuse to listen to advice, even such 'ancient truisms' as 
'decoupling is always right', and even after your experience and/or 
knowledge has been shown as lacking, cements the no vote even more because, 
as Dave Abrahams said, the vote goes to the library and the maintainer...

-- 
"What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual
devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than
from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate."
Neil Postman