Re: [boost] [xint] quick review

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] quick review
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-25 07:07:15

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Daniel James
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 9:56 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] quick review
> 
> 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.

+1

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow,
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]  07714330204
pbristow_at_[hidden]