Re: [boost] Re: Re: Adding Loki to Boost (reprise)

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-16 06:44:33

----- Original Message -----
From: "James S. Adelman" <j.adelman_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Re: Adding Loki to Boost (reprise)

> On Tuesday 16 April 2002 11:09 am, Alan Bellingham wrote:
>
> > j.adelman_at_[hidden]:
> > >Why is that a problem?  It is permitted and
> > >unambiguous, no more problematic than using long
> > >to mean long int.
> >
> > You mean 'signed long int'?
> >
> > <grin>
>
> Yes and no.  The name of the fundamental type is "long int" and
"signed long
> int" is merely a simple-type-specifier which specifies the type "long
int".
> In constrast "unsigned int" is a fundamental type, for which one of
the
> simple-type-specifiers is "unsigned".  See 3.9.2 [2] and 7.1.5.2 [1;
Table 1].

It's nice to know the standard has a consistent and reasonable
definition of "simple" <.02wink>
I think I'll go write some python code now,

where-things-are-underspecified-but-at-least-they-make-sense-ly y'rs,
dave