> I can't remember why XTL insists on using long long -- the documentation
> is at my fingertips but I just can't seem to reach it... Just one of those
> long hot Australian summer days (but wait it's supposed to autumn now! --
> roll on global-warming!)
XTL does not insist on using long long.
If you do not have it, you should just comment it out in the XTL sources.
Everything will work correctly without it.
I think it's in there because if you have a data structure with
long long, XTL should be able to serialize it.
I recently submitted a patch to the XTL mailing list which fixes
the long long type for Win32. It should be relatively easy to
do another patch for other compilers that do not support long long
natively.
For the platforms and compilers that fail, please investigate if a
64 bit data type exists, and tell me the name. Or tell me whether
there is no logical candidate for the long long type, and I'm sure
José will support the lack of it for those platforms that need that.
XTL *is* tough on the compilers. It makes extensive use of modern
C++ in order to provide the best possible interface. However, the
basic framework *can* work without the most advanced features.
Therefore, it's important that we give XTL a chance to mature:
Try it with different compilers, and see what fails. Consider to
subscribe to the XTL mailing list (very low volume), or just
send in the reports to the mailing list without subscription.
XTL 1.3 is already more portable than XTL 1.2, and if we can help
José with more platform specific patches, I'm sure XTL will be a
good choice for us.
XTL comes in different levels: At the most basic level, it supports
seamless serialization of the basic data types. As you go further up,
it will support strings, arrays, pointers, references and similar
things. At the very top level, it supports entire containers such
as vectors, lists, maps, and what have you.
However, the more advance you get, the more advanced a C++ compiler
you'll need if you want the simple interface.
Greets,
Asger
