"Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote in message news:DF2E67F3D097004694C8428C70A3FD690A4FD9F41B@msgbal516.ds.susq.com...
Chad Nelson wrote:
"Phil Endecott" <spam_from_boost_dev@chezphil.org> wrote:
I have yet to see any other objection to my focus on unlimited-size integers for an unlimited-size integer library.
That's odd, because my very first posts in this review focused on your code's unacceptably-poor performance for fixed-size integers. Here's what I wrote in my review: "Performance of small and fixed-length integers is poor. This could be resolved by storing fixed-length values on the stack, or by using some sort of small buffer optimisation."
I read that as an objection to the performance of the fixed-size integers, not an objection to the library itself because it focused on unlimited-size integers.
That's how it appears to me.
How is that significantly different? The suboptimal performance of fixed-sized integers is the direct consequence of a wrong internal design and 'focus on unlimited-size integers'... -- "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