Re: [boost] Second iteration of Boost.XInt library uploaded requesting further comments

Subject: Re: [boost] Second iteration of Boost.XInt library uploaded requesting further comments
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-31 20:28:15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/31/2010 02:35 PM, Steven Watanabe wrote:

>> i see
>> i'm too lazy too consult the standard
>> but still i think it's a good idea to define compile time constants as
>> enum members
>>
>> can you clear this question for me once and forever, Steven? is it
>> preferable or is it solely a matter of taste?
>>   
> 
> static const size_t is usually better because it has the correct
> type, and so will behave better for overload resolution.

Exactly my point. But while we're on the subject: considering that those
are in a namespace (so they don't pollute the global namespace), and are
constants, is there any particular reason to use or not use "static" in
the declarations?
- -- 
Chad Nelson
Oak Circle Software, Inc.
*
*
*
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkuz6J8ACgkQp9x9jeZ9/wQ4IQCgy3lZdFFzpveZw0PgLamsntEl
A2MAn2odOrwWxPCxc3lB9T75YV4MiiRh
=cdqg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----