From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-06 07:26:45
"Thomas Witt" <witt_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> "Thomas Witt" <witt_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>>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
> 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
No way! Your comments are much appreciated.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk