Like others, I suspect, I have hesitated before expressing views on these useful utilities, as I have no strong views or knowledge, except an incredulity that the LANGUAGE should not have a way of specifying binary input - and that there that this hasn't been mentioned for C++0x. Surely binary has always been MUCH more useful than octal? Having briefly perused both offerings, and read expert views on them, I conclude that neither is in a polished state, but that both have their merits, and I agree that there is room for BOTH in Boost, and no comelling reason to make a choice. I therefore support acceptance of BOTH, subject to MAJOR improvement of documentation, examples, rationale, including the pros and cons, and cross reference to the 'other way of doing it'. Paul Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB Phone and SMS text +44 1539 561830, Mobile and SMS text +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com www.hetp.u-net.com | -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Pavel Vozenilek | Sent: 21 October 2005 02:10 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: [boost] [ongoing review of binary_int] reviewers for | small utilitywanted | | Reviews of binary int utility are needed. The tool is very small (but | useful) and review should not take much of time. Both Scott | Schurr and Matt | Calabrese put quite a lot of effort into their work. | | | Scott Schurr's version is in http://boost-consulting.com/vault/ (file | binary_int.zip). | It can be used as: | unsigned int regValue2 = binary_int<1000,1001,0011,0000>::value; | | | Matt Calabrese's version is in | http://www.illegal-immigration.com/Riv/boost/binary_literal2.hpp. | It can be used as: | int x = BOOST_BINARY_LITERAL( 101 0111 1010 0110 ); | | | /Pavel | | | | | _______________________________________________ | Unsubscribe & other changes: | http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost |