This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Sep 28, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Gennaro Prota wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:23:51 -0400, Howard Hinnant <hhinnant@apple.com> wrote:
Btw., we've also had the need for signed/unsigned conversion in our library in the past. We dealt with it by adding a typedef or two to numeric_limits, something like this (we don't have them anymore but at one point private versions of them were in there):
numeric_limits<T>::signed_type numeric_limits<T>::unsigned_type
Thanks for the data point. Imho that puts us a notch closer to a proposal.
You don't mean a proposal to add them to numeric_limits, do you? (Sorry, just to be sure! :-))
My personal hat on: I hope not.
My LWG Chair hat on: The LWG will entertain all reasonable proposals.
I have no plans to write up a proposal for this but I'd have no problem with one that called for adding these typedefs to numeric_limits (they would fit in with the is_signed member). The standalone add_unsigned critters would be okay too. They would be in line with all the other little traits classes. I don't see a big advantage of one approach over the other. Except perhaps that the compiler would have to parse all the type traits classes even when all that was needed were a conversion from unsigned to signed or vice versa (although parsing limits wouldn't be that much less expensive, either). Seems like a lot of CPU cycles for something so trivial. But I guess that's nothing new in C++ ;-)
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |