-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Daniel James Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 9:56 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] quick review
On 25 March 2011 09:30, Domagoj Saric <domagoj.saric@littleendian.com> wrote:
<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/215984>
True, I did miss that one...however AFAICT this is a proposal by Jeffrey Lee Hellrung and it does not quite match what SW was saying ("...since it won't require breaking the interface") as it is a proposal for expanding the interface to accept user defined xint types and, additionally, to which you conclude with "Yes, there's plenty to do before I even seriously think about that." It is also not entirely clear that it would provide 'true fixed-size integer' support (i.e. with near zero overhead)
Personally, I'd just supply two different classes and overload the appropriate functions rather than implementing a complicated generic version. It'd
probably
take less effort and be more pleasant to use (faster compiles and shorter template error messages). Having the two implementations to compare would also be an aid for more ambitious people.
If Chad doesn't wish to implement an efficient fixed size integer, and his existing one is consider unacceptable then it could be removed from xint, and left for someone else to implement. They don't need to share code to be interchangeable and if it's as important as you say, I'm sure someone will be willing to put the effort in.
IMO requirements for a fast fixed size integer shouldn't deny those who want a dynamically sized integer.
+1 Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com