From: Stephen Nutt (snutt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-31 08:43:45
Thank you, I'll go ahead and make those changes. Quick question though.
The current specializations are
// specializatons: 1=long, 2=int, 3=short, 4=signed char,
// 6=unsigned long, 7=unsigned int, 8=unsigned short, 9=unsigned long
// no specializations for 0 and 5: requests for a type > long are in
It would seem 'cleaner' to shift everything along to make the new ones
// specializatons: 1=int64_t, 2=long, 3=int, 4=short, 5=signed char,
// 7= uint64_t, 8=unsigned long, 9=unsigned int, 10=unsigned short,
// no specializations for 0 and 6: requests for a type > int64_t are in
However I worry if this might break existing code. Is the template
int_least_helper supposed to be used outside of integer.hpp, or is it purely
an internal implementation for the templates? If it is supposed to be
internal I wonder if I should move it into a nested namespace for the
1) Make the fact that int_least_helper should not be used outside of
2) Cause compile errors for anyone currently using int_least_helper forcing
them to preferably not use int_least_helper, or at least recognise the new
----- Original Message -----
From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Why no long long support in integer::int_t?
> At 09:19 PM 8/30/2002, Stephen Nutt wrote:
> >I believe what I need is a change to boost\integer.hpp along the
> >lines ...
> Please go ahead and make the changes, and also the corresponding changes
> integer_test.cpp. Please make sure they work with at least one compiler,
> and then send me the changed files via private email. I'll be happy to
> apply them to CVS.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk