From: Marsh J. Ray (marsh.boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-01 21:31:08
Sebastian Redl wrote:
> No, that's not true. (See Scott Meyers, Effective C++, Item 35) If a
> signed integer IS-A unsigned integer, then all invariants of unsigned
> integer must hold true for signed integer - including the one about
> negative values. ("There's no such thing.")
If this type is meant to have an invariant "about negative values", then
perhaps it shouldn't be called UNsigned_integer (i.e. lacking the
quality of sign)? Perhaps a better name would be nonnegative_integer.
I think I'll ask the waiter if he can unsweeten my tea . . . on second
thought, maybe I'd better not.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk