[boost] Re: Type Traits, Take Two

From: Andy Sawyer (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-01-07 07:07:25

On 06 January 2000 19:39, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> scleary_at_[hidden] writes:
> 
> | I've messed around with the type traits as we have them so far, and have
> | come up with the following scheme for type classification:
> | 
> | Basically, for numeric types, I chose the following numeric 
> categories as
> | suggested by the Standard:
> |   unsigned integral
> |   signed integral
> |   integral (= unsigned integral + signed integral
> |       + any integral types without defined 'signedness' (bool, char,
> | wchar_t))
> 
> As this is an entry on the LWG issue list, could you tell me how do
> you deem a type to be signed? Just it is written 'signed foo'?
> This is an important question for 'char'.

 Not to mention bool (I still maintain bool is neither signed nor unsigned.
I am actually of the opinion that the same is true of char, but for
different reasons.)

Regards,
 Andy
-- 
Andy Sawyer, Technical Director, Sufficiently Advanced Technology Ltd.
mailto:andys_at_[hidden]        ICQ:14417938        http://www.morebhp.com
Mobile: [phone] [Voice/SMS] ([phone] [Fax]
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced"