RE: Is const int a signed integer type?

From: Paul Moore (gustav_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-21 15:58:55

From: Howard Hinnant [mailto:hinnant_at_[hidden]]
> Of course one can get where you need to go with either design.  So this
> is purely a stylistic argument, not one of functionality.  I personally
> feel that the interface is simpler and easier to remember with fewer
> non-combination names that can be combined with && (or || etc.) as needed.

FWIW, (not much, admittedly, as I don't see myself needing these functions
any time soon...) I agree. Combination names are generally more difficult to
remember (was it is_const_integral or is_integral_const?) and result in more
individual functions. The code using the functions is marginally shorter,
but probably no easier to understand.

As all the queries return compile-time constants, there will be no overhead
in combining with && or || (this is probably obvious to everyone, but it's
worth making the point...)

Paul.

PS I don't understand all the subtleties of the issues these functions are
designed to address, but I would certainly expect is_integral to test true
on const int. If it doesn't, that's another obstacle to remembering what is
going on...