From: Krystian Stasiowski (sdkrystian_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-02-27 14:56:55
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:33 AM degski via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:
> I guess I'm too late (sitting in a bus, not watching the list), but I would
> (like to throw in that I would like to) have a template-SizeType-parameter
> and leave the signed- or unsigned-ness in the middle (while making sure
> things work correctly for both types (not hard)). This avoids the 'should
> we have ssize ( ), which seems to go against the current grain (but is
> recognized as being problematic), but it does benefit from being able to
> benefit from better optimizations due to the use of signed size-types.
>
Any benefit that would be gained from this would be marginal, and the
interface would suffer from another template parameter that 99% of the user
base would never touch. Perhaps it would be best to leave this
unimplemented.