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
-- Andy Sawyer, Technical Director, Sufficiently Advanced Technology Ltd. mailto:andys_at_[hidden] ICQ:14417938 http://www.morebhp.com Mobile: (+44)7970 299892 [Voice/SMS] (+44)7970 523053 [Fax] "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk