Re: [boost] [xint] quick review

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] quick review
From: Domagoj Saric (domagoj.saric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-15 09:50:32

"Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:DF2E67F3D097004694C8428C70A3FD690A4FD9F41B_at_msgbal516.ds.susq.com...
> Chad Nelson wrote:
>> "Phil Endecott" <spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> >> I have yet to see any other objection to my focus on unlimited-size
>> >> integers for an unlimited-size integer library.
>> >
>> > That's odd, because my very first posts in this review focused on
>> > your code's unacceptably-poor performance for fixed-size integers.
>> > Here's what I wrote in my review:  "Performance of small and
>> > fixed-length integers is poor.  This could be resolved by storing
>> > fixed-length values on the stack, or by using some sort of small
>> > buffer optimisation."
>>
>> I read that as an objection to the performance of the fixed-size
>> integers, not an objection to the library itself because it focused on
>> unlimited-size integers.
>
> That's how it appears to me.

How is that significantly different? The suboptimal performance of 
fixed-sized integers is the direct consequence of a wrong internal design 
and 'focus on unlimited-size integers'...

-- 
"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