I'm re-posting Vicente's message which apparently got lost in a server issue so we can respond to it. Robert Ramey Hi, let me start with some comments and questions. I was wondering if the requirements of Numeric don't need some kind of conversions between other numeric types. https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/robertramey... T(u) T{u} How can you implement the conversion from safe<U> to T if you can not convert from U to T? We have implicit conversion from T to Safe and from Safe to T template<class T> constexpr /*explicit*/ safe_base(const T & t); template< class R, typename std::enable_if< !boost::numeric::is_safe<R>::value, int
::type = 0
constexpr operator R () const; constexpr operator Stored () const; I believed that the conversion from Safe to T needed to be explicit. Having implicit conversion in both directions is suspect. Why the explicit conversion between safe<T> and safe<U> are not allowed when T and U are not the same? IMO, safe_base<T> is either not trivial default constructible and we check the validity of 0, if we don't check it, we should declare it =default. The current definition doesn't adds nothing and makes the type a non-POD and non trivial_default_constructible, which forbids its use on binary messages. constexpr explicit safe_base() { // this permits creating of invalid instances. This is inline // with C++ built-in but violates the premises of the whole library // choice are: // do nothing - violates premise of he library that all safe objects // are valid // initialize to valid value - violates C++ behavior of types. // add "initialized" flag. Preserves fixes the above, but doubles // "overhead" // still pending on this. } I'll suggest to use constexpr safe_base() = default; BTW, why the default constructor is declared explicit? As you say, could we talk of safe<short> when we can have one uninitialized? I believe this needs to appear clearly on the documentation if not already in. Has safe<const T> a sense? Integer<T> are not traits as there is a compiler error when T is not an integer :( template <class T> class Integer : public Numeric<T> { // integer types must have the corresponding numeric trait. static_assert( std::numeric_limits<T>::is_integer, "Fails to fulfill requirements for an integer type" ); }; The same for Numeric. Have you considered to define traits (usable with SFINAE)? I don't see a concept SafeNumeric. Have you considerd it? BTW, these concept classes check only for a single requirement. Shouldn't you specialize numeric_limits lowest()? Have you considered to define basic algorithms managing with the valid conversion between Numeric with the different policies, as Lawrence Crowl is proposing for the standard? http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0103r1.html http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0105r1.html I find weird the way you are including the files #include "concept/integer.hpp" #include "concept/exception_policy.hpp" #include "concept/promotion_policy.hpp" #include "safe_common.hpp" #include "exception_policies.hpp" #include "boost/concept/assert.hpp" I believed we used to inlcude boost files using <> and the absolute path. Is this a good practice? Does it allows the compiler to perform better? Best, Vicente
On 3/8/17 9:36 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
I'm re-posting Vicente's message which apparently got lost in a server issue so we can respond to it.
Robert Ramey
Hi, let me start with some comments and questions. I was wondering if the requirements of Numeric don't need some kind of conversions between other numeric types. https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/robertramey...
T(u) T{u}
Hmmm - I see that safe types have this. My intention is that the Numeric concept include both built in types as well as safe versions of same. Do built in types like int support this? That is is int(42) legal? I'll look into this.
How can you implement the conversion from safe<U> to T if you can not convert from U to T? I believe this would fail - probably with some totally confusing error message. I think the best would be:
a) Improve implementation of Numeric and other concepts with static_asserts. b) Use these implementations to check types when used.
We have implicit conversion from T to Safe and from Safe to T template<class T> constexpr /*explicit*/ safe_base(const T & t); template< class R, typename std::enable_if< !boost::numeric::is_safe<R>::value, int
::type = 0
constexpr operator R () const; constexpr operator Stored () const;
I believed that the conversion from Safe to T needed to be explicit.
I'm convinced of this. The concern is that implicit conversion would break the value checking. But I don't see that as a concern as value checking is implemented by overloading the binary assignment operator and the casting operator. So void f(short x){ ... } safe<long> l = 42; short i = l; // will be checked at runtime and be OK f(l); // conversion to short will be checked at runtime and be OK l = 123412312321123; i = l; // will throw at runtime f(l); // will throw at runtime
Having implicit conversion in both directions is suspect. Why the explicit conversion between safe<T> and safe<U> are not allowed I believe they are. implicit conversions as well.
when T and U are not the same? they are. as long as the arithmetic value doesn't change.
IMO, safe_base<T> is either not trivial default constructible and we check the validity of 0, if we don't check it, we should declare it =default. The current definition doesn't adds nothing and makes the type a non-POD and non trivial_default_constructible, which forbids its use on binary messages. constexpr explicit safe_base() { // this permits creating of invalid instances. This is inline // with C++ built-in but violates the premises of the whole library // choice are: // do nothing - violates premise of he library that all safe objects // are valid // initialize to valid value - violates C++ behavior of types. // add "initialized" flag. Preserves fixes the above, but doubles // "overhead" // still pending on this. } I'll suggest to use constexpr safe_base() = default;
OK - I'll try this.
BTW, why the default constructor is declared explicit? As you say, could we talk of safe<short> when we can have one uninitialized?
I think this is cruft - I'll check
I believe this needs to appear clearly on the documentation if not already in.
Has safe<const T> a sense?
Hmmm - I'm not sure. what about - safe<T &> and safe<const T&>. Truth is I haven't considered this. I've used const safe<T> to good effect.
Integer<T> are not traits as there is a compiler error when T is not an integer :(
I'm aware of this. In this library Integer<T> etc. are used only for type checking and a compiler error is just fine for that. I don't even want to think about using this for code dispatch now. In the past I've used BCC for this but i think it's out dated and somewhat awkward. It produces a compile time error as well. For those who need concepts-lite style concept checking I recommend Paul Fultz's Tick Library to be found in the incubator. (off topic) Actually, I don't think that this library is more than sufficient for those who actually need such a facility. I've used it on other projects.
template <class T> class Integer : public Numeric<T> { // integer types must have the corresponding numeric trait. static_assert( std::numeric_limits<T>::is_integer, "Fails to fulfill requirements for an integer type" ); };
The same for Numeric. Have you considered to define traits (usable with SFINAE)?
I didn't need them. What I did need and used is to create some traits "is_safe" and maybe a couple of others - off hand I don't remember.
I don't see a concept SafeNumeric. Have you considerd it?
Hmmm it's in the documentation. It's implemented in the code (using BCC concept checking!) But I didn't actually use it in the code. As I mentioned before, I think I should use these concepts in the code to help with user decipher error messages. Given this and my earlier comments, I would convert this to static_assert.
BTW, these concept classes check only for a single requirement. Shouldn't you specialize numeric_limits lowest()?
Right - good call. And they should check other requirements such as is_integer.
Have you considered to define basic algorithms managing with the valid conversion between Numeric with the different policies, as Lawrence Crowl is proposing for the standard?
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0103r1.html http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0105r1.html
I hadn't seen these - they are spanking new! I gave a presentation to the committee on safe numeric library a year ago. I don't know if this is related in any way. My impression of the response was that it was underwhelming. Oh - I see now that the are revisions of previous papers which I had seen before. My general impression of these efforts are a) that are not user friendly for fixing existing code. b) they don't exploit modern C++ facilities which permit many issues to be addressed a compile time. safe numerics is much more practical for users to use. But it's also much more complex to implement. I asked Bjarne at his presentation at CPPCon 2016 about his view of Boost. His response included the comment that he thought many boost library were overly complex. I would certainly agree that many boost libraries are too complex to be in something like a C++ standard. This is one of the main reasons I'm pivoting toward boost and away from the inclusion in the standard.
I find weird the way you are including the files #include "concept/integer.hpp" #include "concept/exception_policy.hpp" #include "concept/promotion_policy.hpp" #include "safe_common.hpp" #include "exception_policies.hpp" #include "boost/concept/assert.hpp" I believed we used to inlcude boost files using <> and the absolute path.
LOL - this has been mentioned multiple times. My reasons for this is the following: My understanding is that <> when one intends to search all the include directories in the list of include directories specified on the command line and/or some environmental variable (INCLUDE?). Otherwise one can/should use "" if one doesn't need to do that. The test/build examples don't need to do that so they use "". One advantage is that I don't have to worry about accidental collisions with names in other directories which i forgot are in my include list.
Is this a good practice? Does it allows the compiler to perform better? This has not been a consideration for me. It might be faster at compile time, but I'm doubtful it would be detectable.
Thanks for your comments, they are always helpful and appreciated. Robert Ramey
Best, Vicente
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Le 08/03/2017 à 19:52, Robert Ramey via Boost a écrit :
On 3/8/17 9:36 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
I'm re-posting Vicente's message which apparently got lost in a server issue so we can respond to it.
Robert Ramey
Hi, let me start with some comments and questions. I was wondering if the requirements of Numeric don't need some kind of conversions between other numeric types. https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/robertramey...
T(u) T{u}
Hmmm - I see that safe types have this. My intention is that the Numeric concept include both built in types as well as safe versions of same. Do built in types like int support this? That is is int(42) legal? I'll look into this.
How can you implement the conversion from safe<U> to T if you can not convert from U to T? I believe this would fail - probably with some totally confusing error message. I think the best would be:
a) Improve implementation of Numeric and other concepts with static_asserts. b) Use these implementations to check types when used. I believe you should start by stating clearly the requirements. The conversion between Numerics is needed if you want to support conversion from safe<U> to T.
We have implicit conversion from T to Safe and from Safe to T template<class T> constexpr /*explicit*/ safe_base(const T & t); template< class R, typename std::enable_if< !boost::numeric::is_safe<R>::value, int
::type = 0
constexpr operator R () const; constexpr operator Stored () const;
I believed that the conversion from Safe to T needed to be explicit.
I'm convinced of this. The concern is that implicit conversion would break the value checking. I don't follow you here. But I don't see that as a concern as value checking is implemented by overloading the binary assignment operator and the casting operator. So
void f(short x){ ... } safe<long> l = 42; Here you have an implicit conversion int -> safe<long> and this is safe. short i = l; // will be checked at runtime and be OK Here there is an implicit conversion int -> safe<long> -> short that is not safe. I believe that for a safe class, this should be forbidden at compile time. If the user wants to do the conversion she must be explicit
short i = safe<short>(l); or short i(l); Think about how std::duration works. When we can loss information, implicit conversion are dangerous and should be avoided. This is what you are trying to fix with your library, isn't it?
f(l); // conversion to short will be checked at runtime and be OK I will expect an explicit conversion here.
l = 123412312321123; i = l; // will throw at runtime f(l); // will throw at runtime
You say that you are convinced, but your conversions/constructors are implicit.
Having implicit conversion in both directions is suspect. Why the explicit conversion between safe<T> and safe<U> are not allowed I believe they are. implicit conversions as well. Could you show how?
when T and U are not the same? they are. as long as the arithmetic value doesn't change. What do you mean?
IMO, safe_base<T> is either not trivial default constructible and we check the validity of 0, if we don't check it, we should declare it =default. The current definition doesn't adds nothing and makes the type a non-POD and non trivial_default_constructible, which forbids its use on binary messages. constexpr explicit safe_base() { // this permits creating of invalid instances. This is inline // with C++ built-in but violates the premises of the whole library // choice are: // do nothing - violates premise of he library that all safe objects // are valid // initialize to valid value - violates C++ behavior of types. // add "initialized" flag. Preserves fixes the above, but doubles // "overhead" // still pending on this. } I'll suggest to use constexpr safe_base() = default;
OK - I'll try this.
BTW, why the default constructor is declared explicit? As you say, could we talk of safe<short> when we can have one uninitialized?
I think this is cruft - I'll check
I believe this needs to appear clearly on the documentation if not already in.
Has safe<const T> a sense?
Hmmm - I'm not sure. what about - safe<T &> and safe<const T&>. Truth is I haven't considered this. I've used const safe<T> to good effect. Can you consider adding what the library supports in the documentation.
Integer<T> are not traits as there is a compiler error when T is not an integer :(
I'm aware of this. In this library Integer<T> etc. are used only for type checking and a compiler error is just fine for that. I don't even want to think about using this for code dispatch now. In the past I've used BCC for this but i think it's out dated and somewhat awkward. It produces a compile time error as well. For those who need concepts-lite style concept checking I recommend Paul Fultz's Tick Library to be found in the incubator. (off topic) Actually, I don't think that this library is more than sufficient for those who actually need such a facility. I've used it on other projects.
template <class T> class Integer : public Numeric<T> { // integer types must have the corresponding numeric trait. static_assert( std::numeric_limits<T>::is_integer, "Fails to fulfill requirements for an integer type" ); };
The same for Numeric. Have you considered to define traits (usable with SFINAE)?
I didn't need them. What I did need and used is to create some traits "is_safe" and maybe a couple of others - off hand I don't remember. Well, I believe that soon or later some one would need a traits that can be used using SFINAE.
I don't see a concept SafeNumeric. Have you considerd it?
Hmmm it's in the documentation. It's implemented in the code (using BCC concept checking!) But I didn't actually use it in the code. As I mentioned before, I think I should use these concepts in the code to help with user decipher error messages. Given this and my earlier comments, I would convert this to static_assert. I was looking fro it here and it is not https://github.com/robertramey/safe_numerics/tree/master/include/concept
BTW, these concept classes check only for a single requirement. Shouldn't you specialize numeric_limits lowest()?
Right - good call. And they should check other requirements such as is_integer.
Have you considered to define basic algorithms managing with the valid conversion between Numeric with the different policies, as Lawrence Crowl is proposing for the standard?
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0103r1.html http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0105r1.html
I hadn't seen these - they are spanking new! I gave a presentation to the committee on safe numeric library a year ago. I don't know if this is related in any way. My impression of the response was that it was underwhelming. Oh - I see now that the are revisions of previous papers which I had seen before. My general impression of these efforts are
a) that are not user friendly for fixing existing code. b) they don't exploit modern C++ facilities which permit many issues to be addressed a compile time.
I see these proposals as the basis for numerics. High level libraries as yours could be built on top of these basis. Could you consider it?
safe numerics is much more practical for users to use. But it's also much more complex to implement. I asked Bjarne at his presentation at CPPCon 2016 about his view of Boost. His response included the comment that he thought many boost library were overly complex. I would certainly agree that many boost libraries are too complex to be in something like a C++ standard. This is one of the main reasons I'm pivoting toward boost and away from the inclusion in the standard.
Well people have different needs. C/C++ integers are too dangerous and error prone. I'm sure a good safe integer library will find its users.
I find weird the way you are including the files #include "concept/integer.hpp" #include "concept/exception_policy.hpp" #include "concept/promotion_policy.hpp" #include "safe_common.hpp" #include "exception_policies.hpp" #include "boost/concept/assert.hpp" I believed we used to inlcude boost files using <> and the absolute path.
LOL - this has been mentioned multiple times. My reasons for this is the following:
My understanding is that <> when one intends to search all the include directories in the list of include directories specified on the command line and/or some environmental variable (INCLUDE?). Otherwise one can/should use "" if one doesn't need to do that. The test/build examples don't need to do that so they use "". One advantage is that I don't have to worry about accidental collisions with names in other directories which i forgot are in my include list.
Is this a good practice? Does it allows the compiler to perform better? This has not been a consideration for me. It might be faster at compile time, but I'm doubtful it would be detectable.
Thanks, I have used to use <lib/file.hpp>, and considered "file.hpp" a bad style as I have seen a lot of "../..folder/file.h", but now that I think more on it there are also good uses of "file.hpp".
Thanks for your comments, they are always helpful and appreciated.
I'm not sure I will have time to review your library in deep. Best, Vicente
Robert Ramey
Best, Vicente
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On 3/8/17 1:40 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba via Boost wrote:
Le 08/03/2017 à 19:52, Robert Ramey via Boost a écrit :
How can you implement the conversion from safe<U> to T if you can not convert from U to T? I believe this would fail - probably with some totally confusing error message. I think the best would be:
a) Improve implementation of Numeric and other concepts with static_asserts. b) Use these implementations to check types when used.
I believe you should start by stating clearly the requirements. The conversion between Numerics is needed if you want to support conversion from safe<U> to T.
The short form is that converting from a safe numeric type to any other type will work if the arithmetic values of both types are the same. By the same token, converting any type to a safe numeric type will work if the arithmetic value is preserved. Any other conversion will invoke error at compile or runtime.
We have implicit conversion from T to Safe and from Safe to T template<class T> constexpr /*explicit*/ safe_base(const T & t); template< class R, typename std::enable_if< !boost::numeric::is_safe<R>::value, int
::type = 0
constexpr operator R () const; constexpr operator Stored () const;
I believed that the conversion from Safe to T needed to be explicit.
we disagree here.
I'm convinced of this.
LOL I said this - but my brain must have been asleep.
The concern is that implicit conversion would
break the value checking.
I don't follow you here.
By value checking I mean verification that the resulting value is the same as the original value.
But I don't see that as a concern as value checking is implemented by overloading the binary assignment operator and the casting operator. So
void f(short x){ ... } safe<long> l = 42;
Here you have an implicit conversion int -> safe<long> and this is safe.
short i = l; // will be checked at runtime and be OK Here there is an implicit conversion int -> safe<long> -> short that is not safe.
yes it is. if l is greater than numeric_limits<short>::max() then an error condition will be invoked. It may fail - but it can never go undetected.
I believe that for a safe class, this should be forbidden at compile time. If the user wants to do the conversion she must be explicit
This would break just about all existing programs. It would make the folling code illegal safe<int> i = 0 ... ++i The intention of the library is to make current program safe. It is not a new programming idiom
short i = safe<short>(l); or short i(l);
Think about how std::duration works. When we can loss information, implicit conversion are dangerous and should be avoided. This is what you are trying to fix with your library, isn't it?
Right - and I have. But implicit conversion is not the culprit. It's unchecked conversion which causes problems.
f(l); // conversion to short will be checked at runtime and be OK I will expect an explicit conversion here.
again - we disagree.
l = 123412312321123; i = l; // will throw at runtime f(l); // will throw at runtime
You say that you are convinced, but your conversions/constructors are implicit. Hmmm- Right - I was mixed up.
Having implicit conversion in both directions is suspect.
Why the explicit conversion between safe<T> and safe<U> are not allowed
they are allowed. as are implicit conversions.
I believe they are. implicit conversions as well. Could you show how?
safe<short> i = 1024; safe<char> j; j = i; // invokes runtime error i = j; // can never invoke error and no runtime checking is invoked.
when T and U are not the same? they are. as long as the arithmetic value doesn't change.
What do you mean?
I think the above illustrates my point.
Can you consider adding what the library supports in the documentation.
of course.
I didn't need them. What I did need and used is to create some traits "is_safe" and maybe a couple of others - off hand I don't remember.
Well, I believe that soon or later some one would need a traits that can be used using SFINAE.
certainly not now. I'm not sure it's there's a need or use for it. But once concepts is available, it wouldn't be hard to upgrade the current concept code to use concepts. Then the the concepts could be used as traits for dispatch.
I was looking fro it here and it is not https://github.com/robertramey/safe_numerics/tree/master/include/concept
it's here - safe_numerics/include/concept/safe_numeric.hpp . It's based on BCC. But I didn't use it in code.
safe numerics is much more practical for users to use. But it's also much more complex to implement. I asked Bjarne at his presentation at CPPCon 2016 about his view of Boost. His response included the comment that he thought many boost library were overly complex. I would certainly agree that many boost libraries are too complex to be in something like a C++ standard. This is one of the main reasons I'm pivoting toward boost and away from the inclusion in the standard.
Well people have different needs. C/C++ integers are too dangerous and error prone. I'm sure a good safe integer library will find its users.
I find weird the way you are including the files #include "concept/integer.hpp"
...
Thanks, I have used to use <lib/file.hpp>, and considered "file.hpp" a bad style as I have seen a lot of "../..folder/file.h", but now that I think more on it there are also good uses of "file.hpp".
Thanks for your comments, they are always helpful and appreciated.
I'm not sure I will have time to review your library in deep.
Best, Vicente
Robert Ramey
Best, Vicente
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Le 09/03/2017 à 06:46, Robert Ramey via Boost a écrit :
On 3/8/17 1:40 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba via Boost wrote:
Le 08/03/2017 à 19:52, Robert Ramey via Boost a écrit :
How can you implement the conversion from safe<U> to T if you can not convert from U to T? I believe this would fail - probably with some totally confusing error message. I think the best would be:
a) Improve implementation of Numeric and other concepts with static_asserts. b) Use these implementations to check types when used.
I believe you should start by stating clearly the requirements. The conversion between Numerics is needed if you want to support conversion from safe<U> to T.
The short form is that converting from a safe numeric type to any other type will work if the arithmetic values of both types are the same. By the same token, converting any type to a safe numeric type will work if the arithmetic value is preserved. Any other conversion will invoke error at compile or runtime.
I see. So your approach is to maintain the implicit conversion and check them at run-time. I see that you have considered to have a more static safe interface that avoids common pitfall and require the user to state explicitly that she want run-time checks, and you don't want this. We don't agree here on what we want, and there is no problem. It is just not the way I will do it, as I prefer to have compile errors than run-time errors. Note the the review manager: Even if don't share the approach of the library I'm not saying the approach is not good for the Boost community. Others could take advantage of it.
We have implicit conversion from T to Safe and from Safe to T template<class T> constexpr /*explicit*/ safe_base(const T & t); template< class R, typename std::enable_if< !boost::numeric::is_safe<R>::value, int
::type = 0
constexpr operator R () const; constexpr operator Stored () const;
I believed that the conversion from Safe to T needed to be explicit.
we disagree here.
No problem. There is no single solution to a problem. See your code with an /*explicit*/ here https://github.com/robertramey/safe_numerics/blob/master/include/safe_base.h... template<class T> constexpr /*explicit*/ safe_base(const T & t);
I'm convinced of this.
LOL I said this - but my brain must have been asleep.
The concern is that implicit conversion would
break the value checking.
I don't follow you here.
By value checking I mean verification that the resulting value is the same as the original value. I see.
But I don't see that as a concern as value checking is implemented by overloading the binary assignment operator and the casting operator. So
void f(short x){ ... } safe<long> l = 42;
Here you have an implicit conversion int -> safe<long> and this is safe.
short i = l; // will be checked at runtime and be OK Here there is an implicit conversion int -> safe<long> -> short that is not safe.
yes it is. if l is greater than numeric_limits<short>::max() then an error condition will be invoked. It may fail - but it can never go undetected. My bad. I used safe, when I meant static safe.
I believe that for a safe class, this should be forbidden at compile time. If the user wants to do the conversion she must be explicit
This would break just about all existing programs. It would make the folling code illegal
safe<int> i = 0 ... ++i
The intention of the library is to make current program safe. It is not a new programming idiom I understand but I don't adhere. It maybe better than nothing, but I want more :)
short i = safe<short>(l); or short i(l);
Think about how std::duration works. When we can loss information, implicit conversion are dangerous and should be avoided. This is what you are trying to fix with your library, isn't it?
Right - and I have. But implicit conversion is not the culprit. It's unchecked conversion which causes problems.
f(l); // conversion to short will be checked at runtime and be OK I will expect an explicit conversion here.
again - we disagree. No problem.
l = 123412312321123; i = l; // will throw at runtime f(l); // will throw at runtime
You say that you are convinced, but your conversions/constructors are implicit. Hmmm- Right - I was mixed up.
Having implicit conversion in both directions is suspect.
Why the explicit conversion between safe<T> and safe<U> are not allowed
they are allowed. as are implicit conversions.
I believe they are. implicit conversions as well. Could you show how?
safe<short> i = 1024; safe<char> j; j = i; // invokes runtime error
i = j; // can never invoke error and no runtime checking is invoked.
I meant to show the signature of the functions that are called during these assignments. I had the impression that two user defined conversions were needed. safe<short> -> short -> char -> safe<char> But I missed that you have an direct assignmet from safe<short> -> safe<char> https://github.com/robertramey/safe_numerics/blob/master/include/safe_base.h... I was looking for a copy construction ** from safe<short> -> safe<char> safe<short> i = 1024; safe<char> j(i); // ** Wondering if as the copy constructor is not defined (Rule of Five), you haven't missed this conversion.
when T and U are not the same? they are. as long as the arithmetic value doesn't change. What do you mean?
I think the above illustrates my point. The difference is that with the explicit approach, the user must use explicit conversion when there is a possibility to loos data.
Can you consider adding what the library supports in the documentation.
of course.
I didn't need them. What I did need and used is to create some traits "is_safe" and maybe a couple of others - off hand I don't remember.
Well, I believe that soon or later some one would need a traits that can be used using SFINAE.
certainly not now. I'm not sure it's there's a need or use for it. But once concepts is available, it wouldn't be hard to upgrade the current concept code to use concepts. Then the the concepts could be used as traits for dispatch.
I was looking fro it here and it is not https://github.com/robertramey/safe_numerics/tree/master/include/concept
it's here - safe_numerics/include/concept/safe_numeric.hpp . It's based on BCC. But I didn't use it in code.
My bad. I need to check my view :( Best, Vicente
participants (2)
-
Robert Ramey -
Vicente J. Botet Escriba