Re: [boost] [ongoing review of binary_int] reviewers for smallutility wanted

From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-21 15:58:46

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Matt Calabrese
> On 10/21/05, Paul Mensonides <pmenso57_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > BOOST_BINARY_LITERAL(...)
> > BOOST_BINARY_LITERAL_U(...)
> > BOOST_BINARY_LITERAL_L(...)
> > BOOST_BINARY_LITERAL_UL(...)
> 
> 
> One reason I'd prefer not to do that is because as it stands, 
> you can use any suffixes you want with the literal, including 
> suffixes which are provided as extensions with your 
> particular compiler, such as to specify 64-bit ints and 
> 64-bit unsigned ints, etc.

I think it is reasonable for us to provide the standard suffixes and maybe the
long long suffixes.  If users want other extension suffixes, they can do it
fairly easily with BOOST_PP_CAT (the macro does produce a literal, after all).

> If the length of BOOST_SUFFIXED_BINARY_LITERAL is what is not 
> liked, it could be changed to BOOST_SUFFIXED_BITS or 
> something like that. I only wanted BINARY_LITERAL in the name 
> as opposed to just BINARY or BITS to stress that it is, in 
> fact, a literal.

Documentation should be enough for that.

> The result of the macro is an octal literal 
> and can be used as such. If it's really disliked that much, I 
> don't mind changing it to whatever is wanted.

As a convenience utility, convenience is important.  If the macro name is too
long, people will find it "nicer to look at" to just do the octal conversion
themselves.

Regards,
Paul Mensonides