Re: [boost] [ binary_int]

From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-21 10:44:45

"Alexander Nasonov"  wrote
> Andy Little <andy <at> servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>> I would expect value_type to reflect the number of nibbles
>> e.g
>>
>>     boost::binary_int<0000,0001>   // unsigned char
>>     boost::binary_int<0000,0000,0001>   // unsigned short or unsigned int
>> dependent on platform dependent type
>
> 2.13.1 Integer literals, bullet 2 states
>
>  If it is octal or hexadecimal and has no suffix, it has
>  the first of these types in which its value can be represented:
>  int, unsigned int, long int, unsigned long int.
>
> I would expect the same for binary_literal.

I'd prefer to have 8 bit math available... but I take your point.

BTW In my exmple I should have used bitor rather than or

from my previous post
......

I expected the binary_int to be in boost namespace.

I would expect use of mpl maths on binary_int
e.g
    typedef boost::binary_int<0001>  left;
    typedef boost::binary_int<0010>  up;

    typedef  mpl::bitor_<left,up>::type left_n_up;

.....

cheers
Andy Little