Chad Nelson-2 wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 05/03/2010 01:28 AM, vicente.botet wrote:
What is the meaning of flags static const flag_t flag_negative = 0x01; static const flag_t flag_readonly = 0x02; static const flag_t flag_fixedlength = 0x04;
The first is used (in the 'flags' bitfield) to denote a negative number. The second identifies data_t items that are meant to never be modified (the zero items assigned when new integers are created without specifying a value, for instance). The third is used on fixed_integer types, to tell the base_integer allocation code to use some special handling for them. [...]
I don't understand why any of these informations is not stored on data_t.
flag_negative isn't stored in data_t because if it were, I'd have to make a deep copy of every number when I only want to make it negative for a temporary calculation.
Maybe a DSEL could help in this case. Chad Nelson-2 wrote:
flag_fixedlength isn't stored in data_t because that would defeat the purpose of it, which is to identify a fixed_integer to the allocation functions when no data_t has been allocated for it yet.
Maybe this can be stored on fixed interger then? Chad Nelson-2 wrote:
flag_readonly isn't stored in data_t because I'd have to store yet another variable there to handle it, which would be inefficient because I had plenty of room in this really handy flag variable that I already had to have in base_integer anyway.
Maybe a DSEL could help in this case. Could you say more when and how this readonly flag is used? Chad Nelson-2 wrote:
In addition no information must be stored on base integer that concerns fixed_integer. This is a bad design option, IMHO.
And IMNSHO it isn't. Please give me the courtesy that you would offer any professional that you meet in the physical world, and assume that I have a good reason for every choice I've made until proven otherwise.
I'm afraid. I was also tired and should go to sleep before. I should just request you to explain the rationale behind that. Chad Nelson-2 wrote:
I know I'm overreacting, and that I shouldn't answer e-mails like this when I'm tired. I do appreciate that I asked you guys to do this, and that you're only trying to make it better. But please also remember that it's a hell of a lot easier to criticize something than to do it yourself. 'Nuf said.
You are right. It is easier to criticize than to do. I know the critics you have received were together with good constructive suggestions and than both have help to improved your library already. I hope this will be yet the case. Best, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-xint--Third-release-is-ready%2C-requesting-preliminar... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.