Re: [boost] [xint] quick review

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] quick review
From: Julian Gonggrijp (j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-25 08:49:22

Stewart, Robert wrote:

> Domagoj Saric wrote:
> 
>> 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)
> 
> There is a real, objective reason to not refocus the library: Chad has expressed a lack of desire for doing so.  Since he must write, document, and maintain the code, it isn't your place to force him to do so.  You may have good arguments for your position, but they needn't be authoritative to Chad.

+1

>> 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...)...
> 
> There's no argument that the fixed length integers can be beneficial to some (possibly large) subset of developers.  For example, while I've never done any cryptography, I can see how high performance, fixed length integers would be beneficial in financial computations.  That doesn't, however, require that Chad include them in his library.

+1

> Whether supporting fixed length integers is "relatively trivial" (relative to what, I wonder), that is not, or has not, been obvious to Chad if for no other reason than he views the idea relative to his current design/implementation.  If you're right, and Chad redesigns his code and recognizes how to support them easily and is willing to take them on, then the library benefits and you'll be ecstatic, I'm sure.  However, many things must occur to reach that state, not least Chad's need to investigate removing COW and factoring out the algorithms.  Is it a surprise that he wishes to restrict the library's focus to reduce the scope of that work instead of also adding improved fixed length integers?

Daniel James wrote:

> On 25 March 2011 11:41, Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>> I really do believe that fixed sized integers should be a part of this
>> library.
> 
> I disagree. Fixed sized integers would be best implemented by someone
> who shares your enthusiasm for them. I suppose you could group
> different implementations by different people under a common banner if
> that would make you happy.

+1

Perhaps Domagoj Saric would like to provide a fixed size integer 
library, to be bundled with Chad Nelson's Xint? Domagoj invested 
considerable amounts of energy in pleading for a fixed size integer 
library, he seems to have a serious need for them and he also seems 
to have a clear opinion on the way they should be implemented. 
Hence, he might be the right person to invest similar amounts of 
energy in the actual implementation.

-Julian