Re: [boost] [xint] quick review

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] quick review
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-25 05:56:05

On 25 March 2011 09:30, Domagoj Saric <domagoj.saric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>>
>> <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/215984>
>
> True, I did miss that one...however AFAICT this is a proposal by Jeffrey Lee
> Hellrung and it does not quite match what SW was saying ("...since it won't
> require breaking the interface") as it is a proposal for expanding the
> interface to accept user defined xint types and, additionally, to which you
> conclude with "Yes, there's plenty to do before I even seriously think about
> that."
> It is also not entirely clear that it would provide 'true fixed-size
> integer' support (i.e. with near zero overhead)

Personally, I'd just supply two different classes and overload the
appropriate functions rather than implementing a complicated generic
version. It'd probably take less effort and be more pleasant to use
(faster compiles and shorter template error messages). Having the two
implementations to compare would also be an aid for more ambitious
people.

If Chad doesn't wish to implement an efficient fixed size integer, and
his existing one is consider unacceptable then it could be removed
from xint, and left for someone else to implement. They don't need to
share code to be interchangeable and if it's as important as you say,
I'm sure someone will be willing to put the effort in.

IMO requirements for a fast fixed size integer shouldn't deny those
who want a dynamically sized integer.

Daniel