
5 Jun
2007
5 Jun
'07
9:26 p.m.
Oops, a significant typo! I just wrote:
Why not having int_exact_t entirely based on the exact-width integer types from <boost/integer.hpp>? [ <---- typo!!! ]
But I meant to ask: Why not having int_exact_t entirely based on the exact-width integer types from <boost/cstdint.hpp>? I was thinking of boost::int32_t, boost::uint32_t, boost::int64_t, boost::uint64_t, etc... http://www.boost.org/boost/cstdint.hpp Kind regards, Niels