From: Andy Sawyer (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-01-14 17:37:24
On 08 January 2000 03:17, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> "Andy Sawyer" <boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> | Not to mention bool (I still maintain bool is neither signed
> nor unsigned.
> I fully undertood you point, even when I disagreed ;-)
I seem to remember that you agreed on this point (or, at least, didn't
_actually_ disagree) - albeit for different reasons :-).
> | 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.
I believe that you are correct (again:-). However, my reasoning for
considering char a type-without-signedness is more philosophical than
> BTW, IRC you raised the issue of what ot means to be signed.
Was that during the great numeric_limits<bool>::is_signed debate?
-- 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