Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-06 07:26:45

"Thomas Witt" <witt_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Beman,
> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> "Thomas Witt" <witt_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:d595jr$2d0$
>>>In this case the fact that it is a bitmask type seems to be kind of
>>>misleading. Isn't the whole point of a bitmask type to be able to have
>>>multiple flags set at once?
>> Multiple flags are or'ed together for tests:
>> if ( (status(p) & (directory_flag|file_flag)) != 0 ) ...
>> Isn't the usual way of the standard is to describe that as a "bitmask
>> type"?
> Sorry if my post sounded offending, it wasn't meant that way.

It didn't sound offending at all, and that thought never occurred to me. I
phrased my answer that way so I wouldn't look too stupid if you were seeing
something that I was missing.

> That being said it was clueless anyway. I'll search for a stone to hide
> under.

No way! Your comments are much appreciated.


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