Subject: Re: [boost] [safe_numerics] review
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-12 13:18:54
> In fact, the promotion policy can be eliminated entirely if the underlying
> type is always made automatic.
Specifically, instead of the current arrangement where all user-visible
templates resolve to safe_base<T, Min, Max, PP, EP>, and assuming for a
moment that we only support the range of intmax_t, we could have
template<intmax_t Min, intmax_t Max, class EP> class safe_range;
as a basis and then define safe<T, EP> as safe_range<min(T), max(T), EP>.
Unfortunately, due to the need to support uintmax_t, which doesn't fit in
intmax_t, we'd need two safe_range types and support for mixed operations,
which would complicate things a bit on the implementation side.
On the user side though there'd be no need for promotion policies.
Although operator~ would no longer be supportable. One would have to
explicitly xor with ~0 (of the correct type.)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk