From: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-26 02:40:30
Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:
> I spoke too soon. The reason intptr_t and uintptr_t were omitted was because
> they are not required by C99, and hence not required by TR1.
> So we should discuss this further before applying Maxim's patch.
> On one hand, we may not want Boost code to use a feature that may not be
> OTOH, if virtually all modern C++ compilers do support an integral type
> large enough to hold a pointer, why not supply intptr_t and uintptr_t?
I second this option. I know I'll be needing this facility in the
near future, and probably other libs can take advantage of it as
well (pointer hashing in Boost.Hash, for instance.)
> One possibility is to go ahead and supply intptr_t and uintptr_t, and also
> supply a BOOST_HAS_INTPTR_TYPES (or perhaps BOOST_NO_INTPTR_TYPES)
> configuration macro.
Is BOOST_HAS_INTPTR_TYPES supposed to inform whether there
are vendor-provided ::intrptr_t/::uintrptr_t types? If so, I
fail to see its utility, since boost::intrptr_t/boost::untrptr_t
can be provided universally.
JoaquÃn M LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz
TelefÃ³nica, InvestigaciÃ³n y Desarrollo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk