Re: [Boost-users] size_type doubts / integer library..

From: Zeljko Vrba (zvrba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-18 10:48:33

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 04:03:06PM +0300, dizzy wrote:
> 
> > Checked integer types are useful for debug builds. The runtime cost is not
> > that heavy, usually on overflow a register flag is set (in some cases even
> > an interrupt) so a simple assembler jmp handle this. But again.. only for
> > debug/special builds since we all know that there is a runtime overhead.
> 
> That I completely agree. One of the main reasons I love using stdlib is that I 
> can compile it in debug mode and have all iterators, dereferences checked. But 
> we can't ask from the standard to offer such checked native integers only in 
> debug more or something :)
> 
I wish that the standard defined a set of standard debugging / diagnostic / safety
facilities that would behave identically on all platforms.  You like having debug
STL.  I'd like to have a debug / defined version of integers.  Why do you think that
it's wrong to define those things in the standard as an _option_ ?  Do you mind
that div() and ldiv() functions are standardized[*]?  If not, why would you mind
having defined minimal requirements for safe integers, safe iterators, etc?

[*] These two functions are specifically provided to provide
    platform-independent rounding in integer division.  So the precedent
        already exists.