Re: [boost] [xint] quick review

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] quick review
From: Domagoj Saric (domagoj.saric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-25 05:55:01

"Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:DF2E67F3D097004694C8428C70A3FD690A4FEA6C7F_at_msgbal516.ds.susq.com...
> Chad Nelson wrote:
>> "Domagoj Saric" <domagoj.saric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> > 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.)
>
> It does, however, clarify the purpose and theme of the library.

That purpose is, IMNHO, just/yet another issue on the 'review debating 
table'...Most specifically (to really repeat myself ad nauseam) because 
there is no real objective reason not to 'repurpose' it differently (make no 
first-class/second-class citizen assumptions) because it is relatively 
trivial to do so while at the same time providing benefits for a wide area 
of real world usage scenarios (e.g. the mentioned cryptographic keys...)...

>> 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.
>
> As far as I can see, Domagoj is using argumentative and
> aggressive language to drive home his point that fixed,
> but extended length integers are important and that XInt
> is not acceptable without them.  Whether there had been
> prior communication on solutions is almost moot.  Either
> Chad didn't see the suggestions or had reasons to reject
> them at the time.  Thus, the library being offered is XInt,
> not Domagoj's version of it.

Chad did see them, unless we accept the unlikely chain of events in which he 
was able to miss exactly just the specific points in many of the posts which 
he certainly did see as he replied to them...and was then additionally 
pointed to the fact that he ignored pieces of argumentation. And again, I 
was not the first to point this out (if I recall correctly Mathias Gaunard 
objected to the very same thing)...
Additionally, Chad had no (or at least did not provide any) valid reasons to 
reject those objections and arguments. The only one I can recall is the 
constantly repeated circular "I will not focus on f.s.i because I will not" 
argument which of course simply begs the question. It was sometimes expanded 
with "because I do not have time to do it or do not know how" and then 
simply ignored counter arguments that it is relatively trivial to do it and 
various ways on how to actually do it...

> Nevertheless, it may well be that the result will enable Chad to
> understand how to provide fixed length integers better than
> he's done thus far.

A prerequisite for this is for Chad to actually want to provide proper 
fixed-sized integers, i.e. give them 'focus'...and, IMO, a prerequisite for 
this to be done is to stop treating them just as an 'ugly patch on an 
otherwise hardwired-dynamic-xint that others force me to do'...

> Perhaps Domagoj can offer to review future versions and
> make *constructive* comments at that time.  I'm reasonably
> confident that Chad will accept those comments and act upon
> them if he understands them

Sorry but LOL...I really hope that you simply did not follow the discussion 
so far in order to give such a comment...I did, as did others to whose 
objections Chad reacted as 'attempts to kill the library', give constructive 
comments (not only in this discussion but in previous ones also). And often 
Chad simply refused to 'accept' those comments or dismissed them for dubious 
reasons...

> and finds them consistent with his vision for the library.

And we arrive at the key point...Is his, or anyone else's vision for that 
matter, not also a debatable matter?
When I started to work on my GIL.IO2 proposal, I went out of my way to 
support and provide support for a wide range of use cases (of which I 
personally need just a tiny fraction) simply accepting the fact that there 
is an obvious difference between a Boost.Library and a JohnDoe.Library...

-- 
"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