"Chad Nelson" <chad.thecomfychair@gmail.com> wrote in message news:20110314104859.2a587afb@ubuntu...
The whole point of the library is unlimited-size integers. I plan to improve the fixed-size integers, but they are not the primary focus of the library.
Then my acceptance vote remains a firm no...
Your point, and your vote, were quite clear the first time.
In my 'quick review' I said that the no vote could be considered a conditional accept vote if it weren't for your simple refusal to treat fixed-size integers 'properly'/equally. Since I was unable to read the whole discussion this left space for the possibility that you changed your mind. When you, then, reaffirmed your 'second-class citizen' decision I reaffirmed my no vote.
I have yet to see any other objection to my focus on unlimited-size integers for an unlimited-size integer library. [+] I don't see that the point ever came up, suggesting that other reviewers had no objection to it.
I can't believe that you deny that others before me objected to the treatment of fixed-sized integers?? (Wrapping it in reverse/'positive' wording of 'focus on unlimited-sized integers' does not imply a different issue.)
I believe everyone on this list understands and agrees that he who creates the library and does all the work on it has the privilege of deciding its purpose.
Of course, _until_ he or she wants to include it into Boost. I fail to see how an "extended integer library", in general, implies that 'unlimited sized integers' are more important than 'fixed-sized integers'...as they are both "extended integers".
And why exactly do you refuse to treat fixed-size integers 'properly and equally'?
I'm not well versed in debating terms, but that sounds like a straw man argument, since I've never done so. My position is, and remains, that fixed-size integers are not the primary purpose of an unlimited-length integer library, but that if I can find a way to make them work well, I will do so.
That would be a straw man argument from my side if in fact you've never done so, however in this very paragraph you restate that you do not/will not treat fixed-size integers equally (which is what "primary purpose/focus" "weasel wording" seems to translate to). Then you follow this statement with a shifting-goal-posts fallacy by stating that you will 'focus' on them if you find a way how (until now, as far as I could follow, the answer was more like "I will not 'focus' on them because I do not have time and/or interest in them"). The fallaciousness is further compounded by the fact that a way to 'make them work well' was already presented to you multiple times and in previous discussions (e.g. I briefly repeated my idea in the first post of this thread which you simply chose to ignore)...
You're obviously following only selected pieces of the discussion.
I tried to follow as much as I could but I primarily focused on fixed-sized integers.
In any case, you've done what you can to kill the library, you can drop the subject now.
'Killing' the library was never my goal. Because all objective arguments failed to convince you that in general, fixed-sized integers are not second-class citizens and are actually rather trivial to implement, I was left only with unhappy tools of 'subjective arguments' in trying to show you that there is 'something wrong' with your attitude. Which you demonstrate again by selectively responding to objections and, obviously, taking them personally as you finish off implying that argued objections are actually there to "kill your library"... ps. at one place I saw that you translate std::bad_alloc into a xint specific exception, why? pps. can you please check the settings in your email client because all of your posts look empty with .txt and .asc attachments to me (Windows Live Mail) making it really difficult to reply to them... -- "What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate." Neil Postman