3 ms·

Why did you arrive at this confusion? Why would you assume your observations are relevant to the use case?

asveikau 7y ago
Did you read this part: > bounded::integer uses built-in integers as the template parameter to determine its bounds. This means that it cannot store an integer larger than ... They say the limitation arises from using "built-in integers" as template parameters. It is reasonable to assume "built-in integer" means "int". It is more a stretch to assume "built-in integer" means any number of types depending on the evaluation of several ifdefs [which is what I found in the source]. There is nothing about a "use case" relevant to any of that quoted statement, so I find your reply very confusing too.
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  > It is reasonable to assume "built-in integer" means "int". This strikes me as a little nuts for C but it definitely explains this thread. I just assumed people had already switched over to e.g. sint32/size_t to avoid this problem a long time ago. I couldn’t tell if this was a legitimate complaint or someone’s language lawyering tendencies gone too far.
  - asveikau 7y ago
    First of all, we're not talking C. This is a C++ template parameter. The feature doesn't exist in C. Second, it is not "nuts" to use int, I would argue it's quite a bit more crazy to use rarely-supported 128-bit quantities when you don't need them. Your suggestion of "sint32" (this is not a standardized typedef, you mean int32_t perhaps) would be the same as int on most compilers today, and size_t is likewise very often 32 bits. Your suggestion is basically a no-op in a lot of places. Domain-specific areas like file formats or network protocols are a different story, as those have to be explicit about specifying sizes. Third: > someone’s language lawyering tendencies I suggest you avoid passive-aggressive communication style and just say "you" instead of "someone". If you're going to criticize or give feedback, be direct. Don't vaguely tell me that "somebody" "might" have a problem. Best regards to you, friend.
    - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
      Hey I was just trying to figure out if you were bringing up anything of value :)

Did you read this part: > bounded::integer uses built-in integers as the template parameter to determine its bounds. This means that it cannot store an integer larger than ... They say the limitation arises from using "built-in integers" as template parameters. It is reasonable to assume "built-in integer" means "int". It is more a stretch to assume "built-in integer" means any number of types depending on the evaluation of several ifdefs [which is what I found in the source]. There is nothing about a "use case" relevant to any of that quoted statement, so I find your reply very confusing too.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago
> It is reasonable to assume "built-in integer" means "int". This strikes me as a little nuts for C but it definitely explains this thread. I just assumed people had already switched over to e.g. sint32/size_t to avoid this problem a long time ago. I couldn’t tell if this was a legitimate complaint or someone’s language lawyering tendencies gone too far.
- asveikau 7y ago
  First of all, we're not talking C. This is a C++ template parameter. The feature doesn't exist in C. Second, it is not "nuts" to use int, I would argue it's quite a bit more crazy to use rarely-supported 128-bit quantities when you don't need them. Your suggestion of "sint32" (this is not a standardized typedef, you mean int32_t perhaps) would be the same as int on most compilers today, and size_t is likewise very often 32 bits. Your suggestion is basically a no-op in a lot of places. Domain-specific areas like file formats or network protocols are a different story, as those have to be explicit about specifying sizes. Third: > someone’s language lawyering tendencies I suggest you avoid passive-aggressive communication style and just say "you" instead of "someone". If you're going to criticize or give feedback, be direct. Don't vaguely tell me that "somebody" "might" have a problem. Best regards to you, friend.
  - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    Hey I was just trying to figure out if you were bringing up anything of value :)