On 25 March 2011 11:41, Nevin Liber <nevin@eviloverlord.com> wrote:
On 25 March 2011 10:56, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
Personally, I'd just supply two different classes and overload the appropriate functions rather than implementing a complicated generic version.
The reason I would not do this is because in practice it'll mean yet another incompatible interface, because there will be no requirement to keep two separate libraries in sync.
Why not? You can use well a defined interface and generic unit tests to keep them consistent (it's hard to write sufficiently comprehensive generic unit tests, so they should be used in conjunction with tests written for the individual libraries). Defining robust concepts is very important.
There is a definite need for the fixed but larger than the machine word of my current machine type.
I hope it was clear that I deliberately didn't argue either for or against such a need.
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. Daniel