Re: [boost] [Endian] Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [Endian] Review
From: John Filo (filo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-10 14:02:08

On 09/10/2011 07:39 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:

> Consider this alternative:
>
> A class template, perhaps named "endian_buffer", that is the same as
> the current class endian except it does not provide the operators. The
> typedefs provided would have "buf" added to the name (E.G. big32buf_t,
> etc.)
>
> A class template, perhaps named "endian_integer", that publicly
> inherits from "endian_buffer" and also provides the operators. In
> functionality it would thus be identical to the current class
> "endian", including the current typedefs.
>
> ...
>
> It seems to me this addresses the concerns of those who want explicit
> separate of the boundary between I/O and processing, and that it will
> make users more aware of choices in program organization. Do others
> agree?
+1.  Assuming you support float/double how do you invision them fitting 
into the picture?  Do they only get endian_buffer support?  What about 
changing endian_integer to the more generic endian_value and providing 
just those operators common to all builtin types?  That would mean 
removing the bitwise operators.  If desired, endian_integer could 
inherit from endian_value and add in those extra operators.