Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andy Glew (glew_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-08-03 18:14:54

> > * A template approach where the user would write code like:
> > int_t<32>::exact // to obtain the 32-bit integer type

I think the template approach is "better",
and "more in the spirit of C++".

My only concern is in template depth.

ANSI C++ requires implementations nest templates only 17

> The last line would read
> numeric_limits<int_t<32>::exact>::max()

Q: how many of our 17 levels of template nesting does this consume?

(Apart from any levels of template nesting used in the definitions.)

> As Dietmar already pointed out, there could be applications
> where specifying the width as a template parameter might be
> natural.
> Do we need the signed/unsigned distinction as a second "bool"
> template parameter in the above definitions?

{Would be a good argument for keyword parameters.}

While you are at it, why not define

* explicit integer ranges, not just binary bit counts
    -- you could have unchecked and checked varieties...

* floating point types
    -- the folks who have to deal with funny non-IEEE DSP
    floating point formats, such as 24 bit floats, would love
    to see this!

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at