From: Ed Brey (brey_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-08-06 12:24:17
Email seemed somewhat boring, until Valentin Bonnard wrote:
>Beman Dawes wrote:
>> Now the 64-bit question:
>I would go as a far as 128 bits.
My suspecion is that Beman's "64-bit question" is not a reference to
any current or future computer archetecture, but rather an
ever-so-clever reference to the "$64000 question" TV show that was
popular in the US long before I was born. The idea stuck so well that
the term "$64000 question" is basically now a metaphore for any
>> Is it worthwhile for boost to supply an extended_numeric_limits<>
>> To me, it seems more trouble that it is worth. What do others think?
It seems to me that boost::extended_numeric_limits<type>::constant_max is
an aweful lot of typing. What do others think about calling the class
This is a general issue. If boost wishes to extend the functionality of
a std class, is it appropriate to place an identically named class in
the boost namespace? I think this would be fine, so long as it is
understand that in the boost namespace one finds the "boost version of
the class", which is extended and (optionally?) backward-compatible with
the std (or other) class.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk