...<sorry for the previous post, i accidentally pressed send>... "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' as testified by Phil Endecott's "That's odd, because..." response to your very claim that the issue did not came up. That response clarified that his objection, in practice, did imply the same problem as mine even if differently worded. The fact that you, and seemingly Robert Stewart, read something different from it is a simple case of a reading one's own agenda into someone else's words fallacy. Furthermore, if I recall correctly, Mathias Gaunard was also pretty clear on his view of fixed sized integer treatment, going even a step further by asking/demanding that a 'xint<fixed_size<32>>' should produce the same code as a plain int would...and eventually, after being faced with the usual bike-shedding dance, gave up... You are more than free to continue the mentioned vain dance by claiming to see the, in practice non-existent difference, between 'fixed integers perform badly' and 'fixed integers are treated badly'...I'll take a break... ps. the addition of "...for an unlimited-size integer library" (goal-shifting fallacy) will not make, those opposed to the idea, silently and suddenly accept your idea of what a Boost extended integer library should be. Accept that this is also one of the issues on the review debating table. As expressed so many times before, I see no justification for such a direction as, with a 'proper' design, treating fixed and dynamic sized integers equally is AFAICT almost a nop compared to other work required by the library...
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.
Please, how exactly is that mistranslation? Giving something primary and something secondary focus directly implies _different_ (i.e. _non_equal_) treatment...
[...] 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.
How is this a repetition? I simply pointed out an additional issue in your statement, namely that tried to cop out by saying that you will fix things if you find out how yet while many 'hows' have already been presented.
'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.
Obviously, as that is not what I was saying, rather that because you insist on disagreeing, with not just me, on purely subjective/irrational grounds (i.e. with simple refusals decorated with bike-shedding and/or objective argument ignoring) that there is 'something wrong with your attitude'...Again I was not the first to point out this issue...
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.
What else can it mean, what throws bad_alloc for reasons other than a failed allocation?
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.
Oh well...I guess I'll have to live with it somehow (note that noone else's posts appear that way to me)...please take this into consideration if my replies to you look oddly formatted (as I have to copy-paste and manually indent all of your message)... -- "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