Date: 2002-01-04 08:19:44
4 Jan 2002 16:07:55 +0300 Beman Dawes 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
I would not object against "long long"; I'd rather argue in favor of
int_t<> template (with extended bitness), which is library issue. If
"long long" will be entered into language - so be it, but I would use
int_t<> when bitness is important, and plain "int" when not.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk