Subject: Re: [boost] [Endian] Review
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-10 08:05:48
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba
> Le 09/09/11 15:05, Beman Dawes a écrit :
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Vicente
>>> I have separated the endian class into a endian_pack that is integer
>>> agnostic and an endian class that behaves as an integer (You could see
>>> details in the Sandbox under endian_ext).
>>> Reference docs:
>>> (Sorry but there is a bad link to the reference)
>>> This is not complex
>> Complexity is in the eye of the beholder. To me, that approach was
>> more complex and confusing.
> What do you find complex in separating the classes endian_pack and endian?
That particular approached seemed to markedly increase surface area.
It might be a good thing to provide the basic endian buffer facility
in addition to the full endian integer facility, but not at the cost
of doubling the surface area.
A policy, as Tomas mentioned, would be one way to do that. I'm about
to reply to him asking for his reaction to an inheritance based
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk