Re: [boost] [xint] quick review

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] quick review
From: Domagoj Saric (domagoj.saric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-15 09:18:50

"Chad Nelson" <chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:20110314104859.2a587afb_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...
>
>Your point, and your vote, were quite clear the first time.

In my 'quick review' I said that the no vote could be considered a 
conditional accept vote if it weren't for your simple refusal to treat 
fixed-size integers 'properly'/equally. Since I was unable to read the whole 
discussion this left space for the possibility that you changed your mind. 
When you, then, reaffirmed your 'second-class citizen' decision I reaffirmed 
my no vote.

> I have yet to see any other objection to my focus on unlimited-size
> integers for an unlimited-size integer library.
[+]
> I don't see that the point ever came up, suggesting that other reviewers
> had no objection to it.

I can't believe that you deny that others before me objected to the 
treatment of fixed-sized integers??
(Wrapping it in reverse/'positive' wording of 'focus on unlimited-sized 
integers' does not imply a different issue.)

> 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.

Of course, _until_ he or she wants to include it into Boost. I fail to see 
how an "extended integer library", in general, implies that 'unlimited sized 
integers' are more important than 'fixed-sized integers'...as they are both 
"extended integers".

>> 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.

That would be a straw man argument from my side if in fact you've never done 
so, however in this very paragraph you restate that you do not/will not 
treat fixed-size  integers equally (which is what "primary purpose/focus" 
"weasel wording" seems to translate to). Then you follow this statement with 
a shifting-goal-posts fallacy by stating that you will 'focus' on them if 
you find a way how (until now, as far as I could follow, the answer was more 
like "I will not 'focus' on them because I do not have time and/or interest 
in them"). The fallaciousness is further compounded by the fact that a way 
to 'make them work well' was already presented to you multiple times and in 
previous discussions (e.g. I briefly repeated my idea in the first post of 
this thread which you simply chose to ignore)...

> You're obviously following only selected pieces of the discussion.

I tried to follow as much as I could but I primarily focused on fixed-sized 
integers.

> In
> any case, you've done what you can to kill the library, you can drop
> the subject now.

'Killing' the library was never my goal. Because all objective arguments 
failed to convince you that in general, fixed-sized integers are not 
second-class citizens and are actually rather trivial to implement, I was 
left only with unhappy tools of 'subjective arguments' in trying to show you 
that there is 'something wrong' with your attitude. Which you demonstrate 
again by selectively responding to objections and, obviously, taking them 
personally as you finish off implying that argued objections are actually 
there to "kill your library"...

ps. at one place I saw that you translate std::bad_alloc into a xint 
specific exception, why?

pps. can you please check the settings in your email client because all of 
your posts look empty with .txt and .asc attachments to me (Windows Live 
Mail) making it really difficult to reply to them...

-- 
"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