[boost] Re: Stdint header?

From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-07-28 14:27:26

From: Beman Dawes <beman_at_[hidden]>
> Background:  The new C9X C Langauge standard has added a header
> <stdint.h> which declares integer types with specified widths and
> corresponding MIN/MAX macros. The typedefs have names like int32_t,
> int_least32_t, int_fast32_t, and intmax_t.  The C++ standard doesn't
> supply this header.
> 
> The Question: How can Boost authors access specified width integers?
> (This isn't theoretical; there are at least two boost projects
> underway that need specific integer widths.)
> 
> Possible answers:
> 
> 1)  #include <stdint.h>, and supply a version for systems which don't
> already have one.  Cons: The names go in the global namespace, and it
> seems like a C rather than C++ solution.
> 
> 2)  #include <cstdint>, and supply a version (with names in namespace
> std) for systems which don't already have one.  At least one compiler
> vendor is already doing this.  Pros: Minimum future impact if C++
> eventually standardizes <cstdint>. Cons: The C++ committee may never
> standardize <cstdint> or may standardize it in a way incompatible
> with C.  (These seem low probability, or even very low probability,
> events, IMO.)

I'm not sure that on all systems you can make this work -- you
may not be able to have a header without an extension, or you may
not be able to put your own stuff on the system path.

> 3)  #include <boost/stdint.hpp>, and supply same.  Names in namespace
> boost.  Cons: If <cstdint> becomes either common or standardized,
> Boost is out-of-step.

So I assume you mean "boost/stdint.hpp".  As long as this can be
implemented in terms of <stdint.h> or <cstdint> then we aren't
out of step.

> 4)  #include <boost/our_name.hpp>, and supply same.  Namespace boost,
> and use names different from <stdint.h> names.  Cons: Why fight a
> standard? Boost should support existing standards, even if a bit
> uncomfortable.

> 5) and 6)  Too brain-dead to bother explaining.
> 
> At first, I only considered (3), but then in came a compiler release
> with <cstdint> supplied.  It took some getting used to, but now (2)
> is starting to look better.  I don't really like (1) or (4) for the
> reasons stated.
> 
> Comments?

I'd add option 7: A <boost/stdint.hpp> that puts the names in
std, eventually to be just something like:

   #ifndef BOOST_STDINT_HPP
   #define BOOST_STDINT_HPP
   #include <cstdint>
   #endif