Re: [boost] Re: Proposal for cleanup of INT64 macros

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-16 05:16:55

> Sounds good. "Assertion":
> 
> "The existence of _any_ 64-bit integer type implies the definedness of 
> [u]int64_t and in this case the macro BOOST_NO_INT64_T is not set."
> 
> Correct ?

Correct.

> Indeed. Unfortunately I have to overload for all intrinsic types ;-( , 
> that's why I ask these strange questions.
> 
> (After reading your following post and 'is_integral.hpp', I figure 
> working around it with 'is_integral' - although unhandy in my particular 
> situation - may be the lesser of two evils...)

OK understood, in that case you need to go down the is_integral route.

John.