From: Gabriel Dos Reis (Gabriel.Dos-Reis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-01-07 11:16:55
"Andy Sawyer" <boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
| 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 fully undertood you point, even when I disagreed ;-)
| I am actually of the opinion that the same is true of char, but for
| different reasons.)
As numeric_limits documents the implementation defined aspects of
fondamental^W arithmetical types, I think that
numeric_limits<char>::is_signed is implementation defined.
BTW, IRC you raised the issue of what ot means to be signed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk