Re: [boost] Re: Minimal type for bit-length

From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-30 13:40:07

Daryle Walker wrote:
> 1.  Should there be conditional code to allow "unsigned long long" and "long
> long" base types?

No.  There was a (private) effort a few weeks ago, and showed a serious lack
of support for "long long" either in the compiler (not considered an integral
type, i.e. not usable for template value parameters etc.) or in the library 
(e.g., operator<<(std::ostream&, long long) missing).  Thus, "long long" has
been postponed until better support is available.

> 2.  In the notes for "int_least_helper," you could explain why there isn't
> specializations for "0" and "5" (guess: to allow errors if the bit count is
> above all the built-in types).

Fixed.

Jens Maurer