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

From: scleary_at_[hidden]
Date: 1999-08-06 12:54:12

Email seemed somewhat boring, until Ed Brey wrote:

> 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.

I disagree, but only because I want to use namespace std and namespace boost
in my programs, and identical names would cause name lookup problems.

I think we should avoid naming conflicts whenever possible (especially with
namespace std), so that users can write programs with using-directives for
both namespaces.  On the other hand, we can't be paranoid about the naming
conflicts, either, since we _are_ in our own namespace.

Valentin, I belive, used "xnumeric_traits" for his extended numeric traits
class, which does not conflict with any identifiers in namespace std, and is
not too long to type.

        -Steve