[boost] Re: Extend numeric_limits<> integer traits?

From: Valentin Bonnard (Bonnard.V_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-08-06 10:59:56

Beman Dawes wrote:

> For many uses, these are sufficient.  But min() and max() are
> problems because they are not constant expressions (5.19) and some
> uses require constant expressions.

Like C array declarations, cases in switch 
and integral template parameters

> Valentin worked around this by providing an extended_numeric_limits<>
> class derived from numeric_limits<>, which for integers added:
> 
>    static const T max_constant;
>    static const T min_constant;
> 
> (I have changed lots of details from Valentin's header for the sake
> of exposition.)
> 
> Now the 64-bit question:

I would go as a far as 128 bits.

>    Is it worthwhile for boost to supply an extended_numeric_limits<>
> class?
> 
> To me, it seems more trouble that it is worth.  What do others think?

Simply indispensable for my integral types library.

Trivial to define in term of <climits>.

-- 
Valentin Bonnard