From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-04 08:08:02
At 06:13 AM 1/4/2002, jk_at_[hidden] wrote:
>4 Jan 2002 13:01:57 +0300 Ken Hagan wrote:
>>parameters, then we might reason that when "long long" is added to C++
>I personally would like to see int_t<64> to be added into standard C++
>rather than "long long", "long long long" etc. Why not to implement
>int_t<64> via "long long" when host compiler allows it, and leave it
>unimplemented, or implement it via software emulation, when not?
Since C picked "long long", the C++ committee will get pressure to do it
the same way.
You might want to post your views on the comp.std.c++ newsgroup. That
might be a better forum than Boost for trying to influence core language
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk