|
Boost : |
From: Ben Artin (macdev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-28 14:23:06
In article <4479A423.8010904_at_[hidden]>,
Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>
> >Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >
> >>The main (only, really, when it comes down to it) difference
> >>between a signed and an unsigned integer is that an unsigned integer is
> >>defined never to have a value less than 0. There are very valid reasons
> >>to enforce such a restriction,
> >
> >For example?
> >
> Various physical quantities only make sense for non-negative values.
Wait a minute... please name one physical quantity that is
a) Always integer
b) Never negative
c) Not just an enum (i.e., not just a finite set of possible values)
I can't think of one, which makes me think that your argument about physical
values is irrelevant, as you'd never use an unsigned *integer* for a physical
value.
Ben
-- I changed my name: <http://periodic-kingdom.org/People/NameChange.php>
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk