dlw_int review

From: Eric Ford (eford_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-26 22:21:41

Obviously useful and worth including.

I don't like the choice of the lb in static_lb and it's friends.  I
think static_log2 would be a better choice.  Mainly because it's more
clear, but also I beleive it's parralel to some standard's function,
log2.

Also, I'd prefer replacing uint_t and int_t with uint_bits_t and
int_bits_t.  Again, it's definitely more clear and more parallel with
int_min_value_t, int_max_value_t, and uint_value_t.

Probably showing my ignorance, but any reason why long long and
unsigned long long was left out?  If it's some standards issue which
could change, is it wise to have the int_least_helper use numbers that
don't allow room for adding bigger types?  If int_least_helper is
supposed to be subject to change, then should it be in a "detail"
namespace?  

The only substantive suggestion...  If I wanted to tell integer.hpp
that I have one or more "big_int" types that can hold larger numbers,
I beleive I'd have to replace code a fair bit of code.  It might be
nice to allow integer.hpp to be used with additional types provided by
the user.  I haven't worked out the details, but I wonder if a
linked-list or tuple template parameter (with default template
parameter provided to function as is) could allow for this.  

E