[boost] Re: Type Traits, Take Two

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.

-- Gaby