Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Third release is ready, requesting preliminary review
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-03 15:44:50
----- Original Message -----
From: "vicente.botet" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Third release is ready,requesting preliminary review
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DE" <satan66613_at_[hidden]>
> To: "vicente.botet" <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 7:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Third release is ready,requesting preliminary review
>> on 03.05.2010 at 21:39
>> vicente.botet wrote :
>>>> If they weren't defined, could generic code work with them? The GCC
>>>> specialization for the int type includes all of the members, even the
>>>> ones that are only applicable to floating-point values, so I did too.
>>> How generic code could work if the returned values are not
>>> applicable, not significant. I would prefer a compile error than a runtime error.
>> std::numeric_limits comes from C++ standard
>> so you must consult the standard to figure out why is
>> std::numeric_limits designed the way it is
> I don't think I have said nothing that merits this answer.
> I know perfectly how std::numeric_limits is designed. I'm just saying that if XInt defines
> std::numeric_limits<boost::xint::integer>::max() as 0,
> no generic code can make use of this.
> Please read the posts carefuly before replying.
My bad, I missed the is_bounded detail.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk