Re: [boost] safe integer library -- the scope

14 Dec 2015

      On 12/14/15 11:15 AM, Rob Stewart wrote:
...
On December 14, 2015 11:39:50 AM EST, Robert Ramey  wrote:
...
...
...
...
...
runtime checking is required.  Here we've achieved the holy
grail:
a) guaranteed correct arithmetic result
b) no runtime overhead.
c) no exception code emitted.
d) no special code - we just write algebraic expressions
This is the true motivation for safe_..._range
Why isn't that the behavior of your safe type in the first place?
it is
I'm confused. If that's the behavior of safe, why do you need safe_..._range?
...
...
That is,
...
...
what benefit does your safe type offer that it shouldn't just be
supplanted
by the range type?
safe<T> can be used as a drop in replacement for T . safe...range
cannot.
Why not?
It's really syntactical sugar

everywhere I int I can now use safe<int>.  Without this, I'd have to write

safe_integer_range<
     std::numeric_limits<int>::min(),
     std::numeric_limits<int>::max()
...
which would become tedious.
...
...
...
...
However, since min() and max() are now constexpr, that all can be
collapsed into a single template with three parameterizing types:
the
underlying type, the minimum, and the maximum:
template
<
     class T
   , T Min = std::numeric_limits<T>::min()
   , T Max = std::numeric_limits<T>::max()
...
class safe;
That's exactly what safe<T> is.
Why doesn't that suffice for all use cases?
Hmm - can I rephrase this question as

what is safe_range good for?

answer - lot's of things

b) The main driver is a case like the following:

int a, x
int y = a * x; // possible error

safe<int> a, x;
safe<int> y = a * x; // possible error - but checked at runtime

safe_integer_range<-10, 10> a, x;
safe<int> y = a * x; // no runtime checking necessary

though of course something like the following would be useful

using minutes_t = safe_unsigned_range<0, 59>

There are other examples in the documentation.

Robert Ramey