From: Andy Glew (glew_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-08-03 18:14:54
> > * A template approach where the user would write code like:
> > int_t<32>::exact // to obtain the 32-bit integer type
I think the template approach is "better",
and "more in the spirit of C++".
My only concern is in template depth.
ANSI C++ requires implementations nest templates only 17
deep.
> The last line would read
> numeric_limits<int_t<32>::exact>::max()
Q: how many of our 17 levels of template nesting does this consume?
(Apart from any levels of template nesting used in the definitions.)
> As Dietmar already pointed out, there could be applications
> where specifying the width as a template parameter might be
> natural.
>
> Do we need the signed/unsigned distinction as a second "bool"
> template parameter in the above definitions?
{Would be a good argument for keyword parameters.}
While you are at it, why not define
* explicit integer ranges, not just binary bit counts
int<upper_limit,lower_limit>
-- you could have unchecked and checked varieties...
* floating point types
float<mantissa_width,exponent_width>
-- the folks who have to deal with funny non-IEEE DSP
floating point formats, such as 24 bit floats, would love
to see this!