Boost logo

Boost :

From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-20 17:31:41

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mensonides" <pmenso57_at_[hidden]>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
> > > > I don't know what you mean by option 3. If it causes a glorious and
> > > > loud preprocessor failure, I like that best. If it fails silently, I
> > > > am somwhat ambivalent.
> > >
> > > It causes a preprocessing failure (i.e. a "glorious and loud one").
> >
> > Then why in the world would anyone want saturation instead? That will
> > just cover bugs.
> That is why I'm asking. The arithmetic in the library currently does
> saturation arithmetic. At this point, Joel says "saturation for sure," and
> you [David] say error instead. I currently have it working with saturation,
> but I can remove the saturation an cause an error. I really don't know what
> the best course of action here is--which is why I'm asking.

I think David has a point. I must've missed the part that says that
3 is the most efficient. In my mind, I mistakenly concluded that
no. 2 is the most efficient. In which case, I wouldn't mind
silent saturation or wraparound (which is what integers do anyway).


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