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).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk