Re: [boost] [endian] superfluous boost::operators<> ?

Subject: Re: [boost] [endian] superfluous boost::operators<> ?
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-26 18:04:16

Roland Schwarz wrote:
> I discovered, that the following will not compile:
> 
> unsigned u;
> ulittle32_t u1;
> ulittle32_t u2;
> 
> u = 1;
> u1 = 1;
> u2 = u1 + u;
> 
> The compiler complains about not being able to resolve
> similar conversions.
> 
> My guess is, that using boost::operators<> _and_
> providing type conversion operators at the same time
> is causing this.
> 
> I think it should be enough to define the essential
> operators in cover_operators template, and omit
> boost::operators<> at all.
> 
> At least I am not able to find any problems with this,
> since the compiler adjusts the arguments (using the
> provided type conversion operators?) and calls the built in
> operators, thereby resolving ambiguity.
> 
> Any thoughts?

This has been fixed, and a new test program added that probes for this 
specific test cases as well as interactions between types.

Thanks,

--Beman

PS: I'm working back through old discussions to make sure concerns were 
addressed one way or the other.