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

From: Dave Gomboc (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-02 03:44:28

> // No       <6>
> long long   <5> //not a typedef; #ifdef BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG
> long        <4>
> int         <3>
> short       <2>
> signed char <1>
> 
> [Note: I switched the order since it makes more sense for "larger" types to
> expand towards higher specializations.  Also if you make "unsigned"
> equivalents negative specializations you can grow each in parellel without
> having to renumber each time.]

Quick note: more logical to use positive numbers for unsigned integer
types, and negative numbers for signed integer types.

Dave