From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-23 21:48:08
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:09:58 +0200, Robert Kawulak wrote
> Hi,
>
> > From: Neal Becker
> <...>
> > I'm more
> > interested in bound specified at runtime. I believe (without
> > proof) that
> > for many applications there will be little performance
> > difference. I say
> > this because I'm expecting in many (most?) cases the actual
> > integral values
> > will be known to the compiler.
> >
> > Has any thought been given to adding this? Or, perhaps even
> > making this the
> > default bounded_int, (wrapping_int, etc.) type?
>
> Yes, I'm still thinking about this. The difference between static and
> run-time bounds is that in the latter case a bounded object needs to
> store the bounds which makes its size at least 3 times bigger.
> Another one is that with static bounds many checking operations may
> be optimised-away or at least inlined. Therefore I'd rather not make
> run-time bounds the default. I'm working on this as an optional
> feature, but this is a little bit harder than it seems to unite the
> two concepts.
Catching up with really old email...
I'll just say that for my money I *only* care about compile time types. The
extra storage Robert cites for an application like date-time is unacceptable.
I'll also state that I believe there will be a performance hit as well on
construction of the type (probably 3 integer copies instead of 1 in the
constructor).
I'll try to find some time to look over the latest implementation soon....
Jeff