Boost logo

Boost :

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


"Thomas Witt" <witt_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:d5da7v$d45$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
>
> Beman,
>
> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> "Thomas Witt" <witt_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:d595jr$2d0$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
>>
>>>
>>>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.

--Beman


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk