"Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote in message news:DF2E67F3D097004694C8428C70A3FD690A4FEA6C7F@msgbal516.ds.susq.com...
Chad Nelson wrote:
"Domagoj Saric" <domagoj.saric@littleendian.com> wrote:
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.)
It does, however, clarify the purpose and theme of the library.
That purpose is, IMNHO, just/yet another issue on the 'review debating table'...Most specifically (to really repeat myself ad nauseam) because there is no real objective reason not to 'repurpose' it differently (make no first-class/second-class citizen assumptions) because it is relatively trivial to do so while at the same time providing benefits for a wide area of real world usage scenarios (e.g. the mentioned cryptographic keys...)...
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.
As far as I can see, Domagoj is using argumentative and aggressive language to drive home his point that fixed, but extended length integers are important and that XInt is not acceptable without them. Whether there had been prior communication on solutions is almost moot. Either Chad didn't see the suggestions or had reasons to reject them at the time. Thus, the library being offered is XInt, not Domagoj's version of it.
Chad did see them, unless we accept the unlikely chain of events in which he was able to miss exactly just the specific points in many of the posts which he certainly did see as he replied to them...and was then additionally pointed to the fact that he ignored pieces of argumentation. And again, I was not the first to point this out (if I recall correctly Mathias Gaunard objected to the very same thing)... Additionally, Chad had no (or at least did not provide any) valid reasons to reject those objections and arguments. The only one I can recall is the constantly repeated circular "I will not focus on f.s.i because I will not" argument which of course simply begs the question. It was sometimes expanded with "because I do not have time to do it or do not know how" and then simply ignored counter arguments that it is relatively trivial to do it and various ways on how to actually do it...
Nevertheless, it may well be that the result will enable Chad to understand how to provide fixed length integers better than he's done thus far.
A prerequisite for this is for Chad to actually want to provide proper fixed-sized integers, i.e. give them 'focus'...and, IMO, a prerequisite for this to be done is to stop treating them just as an 'ugly patch on an otherwise hardwired-dynamic-xint that others force me to do'...
Perhaps Domagoj can offer to review future versions and make *constructive* comments at that time. I'm reasonably confident that Chad will accept those comments and act upon them if he understands them
Sorry but LOL...I really hope that you simply did not follow the discussion so far in order to give such a comment...I did, as did others to whose objections Chad reacted as 'attempts to kill the library', give constructive comments (not only in this discussion but in previous ones also). And often Chad simply refused to 'accept' those comments or dismissed them for dubious reasons...
and finds them consistent with his vision for the library.
And we arrive at the key point...Is his, or anyone else's vision for that matter, not also a debatable matter? When I started to work on my GIL.IO2 proposal, I went out of my way to support and provide support for a wide range of use cases (of which I personally need just a tiny fraction) simply accepting the fact that there is an obvious difference between a Boost.Library and a JohnDoe.Library... -- "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