Boost logo

Boost :

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

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
>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
>them to preferably not use int_least_helper, or at least recognise the

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


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at