"Chad Nelson" <chad.thecomfychair@gmail.com> wrote in message news:20110315111145.16769868@ubuntu...
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.)
If, by your own words, the issue you brought up is the same as objecting "to my focus on unlimited-size integers for an unlimited-size integer library", then it definitely never came up. The closest I've seen are complaints about the performance of the fixed-size integers.
"Academic bike-shedding". Nonetheless, if we really must, the issue I brought up 'definitely came up'
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).
If you insist on (mis)translating my words, there's little point in continuing this conversation. My words are perfectly clear without the help.
[...] 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)...
I suppose I'd better add this sentence then, or be accused of ignoring this repetition too.
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. [...]
Perhaps translation *is* needed, because what I'm hearing is that because I insist on disagreeing with you, there must be something wrong with my attitude.
ps. at one place I saw that you translate std::bad_alloc into a xint specific exception, why?
Because a bad_alloc at that point doesn't necessarily mean out-of-memory, it means that the number is too big for the library to represent.
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...
So far as I've been able to determine, Claws Mail has no options that affect that. It sounds like Windows Live Mail is misinterpreting the GPG signature.