From -7724540003466888406 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,cba1ff9ceb231a4 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.alt.net!comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Daniel_Kr=FCgler?= Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Integer conversion rank implementation-defined? Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:15:54 CST Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 33 Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ Message-ID: <1185014836.204124.102890@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> References: <1184969707.151813.156000@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1185014836 17505 127.0.0.1 (21 Jul 2007 10:47:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:47:16 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-Original-To: std-c++@mailman.ucar.edu Delivered-To: std-c++@mailman.ucar.edu User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.1.5) Gecko/20070713 Firefox/2.0.0.5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.177.178.211; posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at csse.unimelb.edu.au X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au id l6LAlxa2023288 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at csse.unimelb.edu.au Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:8980 On 21 Jul., 12:52, Daniel Kr�gler wrote: > Does that mean that an implementation is required to document > the rank values of extended integer types? Or is this an oversight > and should the word "implementation-defined" in this sentence be > changed to "unspecified"? I should probably not write a posting too late in the night ;-) After rereading the paragraph it seems clear that the intent seems to be that implementors shall indeed publish the *relative* ranks of extended types, e.g. rank(short) < rank(some_ext_type) < rank(int) On the other hand this awareness does not really invalidate the question of my OP, whether a new type trait like integer_rank should be provided. It's already clear that there exists a well- defined ordering of the ranks among the integer types, that bool has the lowest value, etc. This trait would also provide a self-documentation of the required relative ordering for extended integer types. Greetings from Bremen, Daniel Kr�gler --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]