Re: [boost] LWG reaction: Header <cstdint>

From: Matthew Austern (austern_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-07 12:34:57

Kevin Lynch wrote:
> 
> Let me say also that there are a number of signatures that I think
> really are safe and for which a reasonable argument could be made that
> they are missing, including (but not limited to)
> 
> double pow(int,double)
> double pow(long, double)
> double pow(double, long)

Fortunately, you can't make a reasonable argument that the
last of those signatures is missing.  See the C++ standard,
clause 26.5, paragraph 6.

I don't think that the first two are nearly as important as
the last.
                        --Matt