Boost logo

Boost :

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-23 10:15:17

Like others, I suspect, I have hesitated before expressing views on these
useful utilities, as I have no strong views or knowledge, except an
incredulity that the LANGUAGE should not have a way of specifying binary
input - and that there that this hasn't been mentioned for C++0x. Surely
binary has always been MUCH more useful than octal?

Having briefly perused both offerings, and read expert views on them, I
conclude that neither is in a polished state, but that both have their
merits, and I agree that there is room for BOTH in Boost, and no comelling
reason to make a choice.

I therefore support acceptance of BOTH, subject to MAJOR improvement of
documentation, examples, rationale, including the pros and cons, and cross
reference to the 'other way of doing it'.


Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
Phone and SMS text +44 1539 561830, Mobile and SMS text +44 7714 330204
mailto: pbristow_at_[hidden]

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Pavel Vozenilek
| Sent: 21 October 2005 02:10
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: [boost] [ongoing review of binary_int] reviewers for
| small utilitywanted
| Reviews of binary int utility are needed. The tool is very small (but
| useful) and review should not take much of time. Both Scott
| Schurr and Matt
| Calabrese put quite a lot of effort into their work.
| Scott Schurr's version is in (file
| It can be used as:
| unsigned int regValue2 = binary_int<1000,1001,0011,0000>::value;
| Matt Calabrese's version is in
| It can be used as:
| int x = BOOST_BINARY_LITERAL( 101 0111 1010 0110 );
| /Pavel
| _______________________________________________
| Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at