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

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
important question.

>>    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?

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
simply boost::numeric_limits?

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.