From: Dave Dribin (dave-ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-26 16:17:55
On Jul 25, 2006, at 10:56 PM, David Bergman wrote:
> What I *would have* considered, though, is to have two templates:
>
> template<...> struct pod_endian { ... no constructor but all the
> endian logic ... }
>
> and
>
> template<...> struct endian : pod_endian { ... constructors and not
> much else ... }
>
> And have conversion operator to get an endian from a pod_endian.
I actually like that. It would double the number of typedefs, but I
think it's a decent compromise. Maybe use a naming convention like
xxx_pod_t for the POD types, e.g. big32_pod_t?
> Additionally, I would probably use my embed_type proposal and get:
>
> template<.., typename IntType, ..> struct endian :
> embed_type<IntType, endian> { ... }
>
> using proper policies.
I'm not familiar with this. Does that make it a non-POD type?
-Dave