From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-24 11:02:35
At 03:11 PM 1/24/2001 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>| ... And a 64-bit type such as
>| "long long" or "__int64" or whatever the vendor chooses to call it is
>| potentially a very reasonable choice.
>Yes, but a vendor who chooses to support long long or __int64 will
>provide the accompaning functions if he thinks he want to support
>those types as arithmetic types.
The problem we have run into with long long or (__int64) on at least two
current compilers is that they provided most (but not 100%) of the
accompanying functions. So everything looked OK at first, and then there
was a missing extractor, or no conversion to double, or whatever.
So it looks like boost should prepare for long long, but not expect it to
work just yet, even in compilers apparently supporting long long.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk