Re: [boost] [xint] quick review

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] quick review
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-25 17:32:20

On Mar 25, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Stewart, Robert wrote:

> I fail to understand how a library author's lack of interest in a feature of interest to any audience is a problem.  The question is whether the library, as presented, is useful and well designed, not whether it could do more.  Suggestions for improvement or extensions to the library are useful, but it is solely the author's decision whether to accept them.

I think the line can be fuzzy between questions about the design of a library and questions about its scope.  IMO Domagoj has a good argument (expressed somewhat harshly) that if the library were designed a little differently, it would support fixed-length large integers better than having a second library duplicating the interface and algorithms.

So, while I strongly agree that library writers shouldn't be forced to implement features they are not interested in, I think people may be fooling themselves if they think they can always distinguish clearly between design and scope. 

In any case, "the process works" and Chad was convinced to support the separation of algos and data, which enables fixed-length and other representations.  This design arises naturally from the problem and was already present internally.

Cheers to another successful review!

Gordon