From: Darin Adler (darin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-26 18:10:39
on 10/26/01 4:09 PM, Fernando Cacciola at fcacciola_at_[hidden] wrote:
>> That would be a conversion that asserts
>> that no precision is lost. The current conversion throws an exception if
>> the result is out of range, but having one that asserts if the result loses
>> precision would be useful too, I think.
> Yes. I considered this too, but leave it out because the implementation is
> rather involved; and I didn't want to scare people out with too much
Ah, we are talking about two different things.
I was thinking of something that would assert if the result could possibly
lose precision due to the types involved. No runtime check at all, just a
compile time check. For generic programming only.
I see that the runtime version might be useful too.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk