Re: Seeking Endorsement: Boost.int128

Matt Borland wrote:
> > I have doubts regarding the signed/unsigned comparison behavior
> > deviation described here:
> >
> 
> > https://develop.int128.cpp.al/uint128_t.html#uint128_t_sign_compare_behavior_deviation
> >
> 
> > While I understand the reasons for wanting to implement comparison
> > this way, I thing I would rather prefer to keep the behavior
> > consistent with the rest of integer types. That is, make it the same
> > as for built-in integer types.
> 
> 
> It is the same behavior as the built-in types have when you set -Werror -
> Wsign-conversion -Wconversion which I think is uncontroversial to say is best
> practice. If this is behavior is removed from the library, then when a user does
> set the aforementioned flags they will not apply to mixed library type - builtin
> type operations which I think is the bigger risk. All of the analysis is static; there
> is zero runtime overhead introduced by these checks.

This isn't a good idea and will inevitably be rolled back eventually. The behavior
of the library types should match _exactly_ the behavior of the built-in types
when they exist (and there should be tests for that.) Doing otherwise, however
well intentioned, will cause more problems than it solves.


_______________________________________________
Boost mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/
Archived at: https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/NQEQJGODRKLVXE32U6WJNS3R7JNBZXWC/