Boost logo

Boost :

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.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at