Re: [boost] [XInt] Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [XInt] Review
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-09 15:27:58

2011/3/9 Joachim Faulhaber <afojgo_at_[hidden]>:
> 2011/3/9 Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. <jhellrung_at_[hidden]>:
>> On 3/9/2011 11:14 AM, Steven Watanabe wrote:
>>>
>>> AMDG
>>>
>>> On 03/09/2011 10:11 AM, Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 3.2.3 Specialization of boost::is_integral<T>
>>>> =============================================
>>>>
>>>> You'd have to provide an instantiation of boost type trait
>>>> boost::is_integral for xint::integral_t, so meta code that is
>>>> implemented for all intergal types will be able to work with xint
>>>> instantly.
>>>
>>> I disagree. xint::integer_t is not an integral type
>>> as defined by the standard. [basic.fundamental]
>>
>> +1
>
> that depends ... I am not aware, that boost::is_integral is limited to
> fundamental types. Maybe there is a degree of freedom for
> interpretation here, I may be wrong. Anyway, from the perspective of
> my library I need to identify general type traits, e.g. if a type has
> a least steppable unit that makes it discrete.
>
> As a sufficient condition I can use boost::is_integral<T> on built in types.
>
>>
>> One would need an alternate metafunction for such purposes.
>> std::numeric_limits<T>::is_specialized && std::numeric_limits<T>::is_integer
>> ?

Ok, my fault ...  I can use std::numeric_limits<T>::is_integer for
what I need in this case!

Cheers,
Joachim

-- 
Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl]
http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de