From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-26 08:54:42
"Bo Persson" <bop_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> How do these strike you?
> Doesn't this run into the same problems as the original standard does -
> what to do when there isn't an integral type large enough? The current
> library definition uses type long, because that is as wide as it gets!
Yes, but there are two ways around the problem. (1) Use long long. Almost
all late-model C++ compilers already support long long, and the C++
committee is in process of adding it to the language. (2) Make it an
implementation-defined type which must be able to hold the largest value the
operating system supports. That means int or long is fine if sufficient for
the platform. It also means that a type like __int64 could be used, or even
long long itself.
If the C++ committee's library working group (LWG) prefers to the additions
go in C++0x, then (1) is fine. If the additions go in the second library
technical report (TR2), then (2) might be better.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk