Re: [boost] [xint] quick review

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] quick review
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-14 10:48:59

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:35:18 +0100
"Domagoj Saric" <domagoj.saric_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>> 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...

Your point, and your vote, were quite clear the first time.

> 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.

I have yet to see any other objection to my focus on unlimited-size
integers for an unlimited-size integer library.

> Your 'whole point of the library' is exactly that, >your< point, I
> did not see any reviewer agreeing with you on that point. 

I don't see that the point ever came up, suggesting that other reviewers
had no objection to it.

> All of this makes the library not Boost.XInt but ChadNelson.XInt...

I believe everyone on this list understands and agrees that he who
creates the library and does all the work on it has the privilege of
deciding its purpose. If you want DomagojSaric.XInt instead, you know
how to get it.

> And why exactly do you refuse to treat fixed-size integers 'properly
> and equally'?

I'm not well versed in debating terms, but that sounds like a straw man
argument, since I've never done so. My position is, and remains, that 
fixed-size integers are not the primary purpose of an unlimited-length
integer library, but that if I can find a way to make them work well, I
will do so.

> [...] 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...

You're obviously following only selected pieces of the discussion. In
any case, you've done what you can to kill the library, you can drop
the subject now.
-- 
Chad Nelson
Oak Circle Software, Inc.
*
*
*