Re: [boost] [Review] of binary_int utility starts

On 10/14/05, Jeff Flinn <TriumphSprint2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

With just reading this description, why not call it what it is: binary_literal. Whether it's a template or a macro(in Matt's case) I think binary_literal is more descriptive.

That is why I decided to call mine "BOOST_BINARY_LITERAL," however, it was also suggested that BOOST_BITS may be simpler and possibly just as descriptive but with less typing. I don't mind either wayt. Right now I think I prefer that it has "literal" in it, since it's more clear that it is useable much like other integral literals. In fact, the result is a hex or octal literal (depending on which version of my macro you look at). -- -Matt Calabrese