Re: [boost] Re: Why no long long support in integer::int_t?

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-01 19:03:22

At 09:43 AM 8/31/2002, Stephen Nutt wrote:

 >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
 >error
 >
 >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,
 >11=unsigned long
 >  //  no specializations for 0 and 6: requests for a type > int64_t are 
in
 >error

Yes, agreed.

 >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?

They are just internal implementation details.

 >  If it is supposed to be
 >internal I wonder if I should move it into a nested namespace for the
 >following reasons.
 >1) Make the fact that int_least_helper should not be used outside of
 >integer.hpp explicit
 >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
 >values.

Yes, agreed. If the code were written today, they would certainly be placed 
in namespace detail or similar.

--Beman