Re: [boost] [boost::endian] Summary of discussion #1

Subject: Re: [boost] [boost::endian] Summary of discussion #1
From: Scott McMurray (me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-04 10:49:50

On 4 June 2010 10:29, Tomas Puverle <tomas.puverle_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Having the arithmetic operators on endian types is a completely wrong separation
> of concerns - it's akin to throwing away types and writing all code just using
> void pointers.
>

I disagree.  The endian types provide different storage policies for
integral types.  Comparing them, which provide much stronger
invariants than swapping-based approaches, to untyped void* code is
unfair.