Re: [boost] [xint] quick review

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] quick review
From: Domagoj Saric (domagoj.saric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-25 05:06:19

...<sorry for the previous post, i accidentally pressed send>...

"Chad Nelson" <chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:20110315111145.16769868_at_ubuntu...

>>> 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.)
>
>If, by your own words, the issue you brought up is the same as
>objecting "to my focus on unlimited-size integers for an unlimited-size
>integer library", then it definitely never came up. The closest I've
>seen are complaints about the performance of the fixed-size integers.

"Academic bike-shedding".
Nonetheless, if we really must, the issue I brought up 'definitely came up'
as testified by Phil Endecott's "That's odd, because..." response to your
very claim that the issue did not came up. That response clarified that his
objection, in practice, did imply the same problem as mine even if
differently worded. The fact that you, and seemingly Robert Stewart, read
something different from it is a simple case of a reading one's own agenda
into someone else's words fallacy.
Furthermore, if I recall correctly, Mathias Gaunard was also pretty clear on
his view of fixed sized integer treatment, going even a step further by
asking/demanding that a 'xint<fixed_size<32>>' should produce the same code
as a plain int would...and eventually, after being faced with the usual
bike-shedding dance, gave up...

You are more than free to continue the mentioned vain dance by claiming to
see the, in practice non-existent difference, between 'fixed integers
perform badly' and 'fixed integers are treated badly'...I'll take a break...

ps. the addition of "...for an unlimited-size integer library" 
(goal-shifting
fallacy) will not make, those opposed to the idea, silently and suddenly
accept your idea of what a Boost extended integer library should be. Accept
that this is also one of the issues on the review debating table. As
expressed so many times before, I see no justification for such a direction
as, with a 'proper' design, treating fixed and dynamic sized integers
equally is AFAICT almost a nop compared to other work required by the
library...

>> 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).
>
>If you insist on (mis)translating my words, there's little point in
>continuing this conversation. My words are perfectly clear without the
>help.

Please, how exactly is that mistranslation? Giving something primary and
something secondary focus directly implies _different_ (i.e. _non_equal_)
treatment...

>> [...] 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)...
>
>I suppose I'd better add this sentence then, or be accused of ignoring
>this repetition too.

How is this a repetition? I simply pointed out an additional issue in your
statement, namely that tried to cop out by saying that you will fix things
if you find out how yet while many 'hows' have already been presented.

>> '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. [...]
>
>Perhaps translation *is* needed, because what I'm hearing is that
>because I insist on disagreeing with you, there must be something wrong
>with my attitude.

Obviously, as that is not what I was saying, rather that because you insist
on disagreeing, with not just me, on purely subjective/irrational grounds
(i.e. with simple refusals decorated with bike-shedding and/or objective
argument ignoring) that there is 'something wrong with your
attitude'...Again I was not the first to point out this issue...

>> ps. at one place I saw that you translate std::bad_alloc into a xint
>> specific exception, why?
>
>Because a bad_alloc at that point doesn't necessarily mean
>out-of-memory, it means that the number is too big for the library to
>represent.

What else can it mean, what throws bad_alloc for reasons other than a failed
allocation?

>> 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...
>
>So far as I've been able to determine, Claws Mail has no options that
>affect that. It sounds like Windows Live Mail is misinterpreting the
>GPG signature.

Oh well...I guess I'll have to live with it somehow (note that noone else's
posts appear that way to me)...please take this into consideration if my
replies to you look oddly formatted (as I have to copy-paste and manually
indent all of your message)...

-- 
"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