Niels Dekker - address until 2010-10-10 wrote:
On 2010-03-07 01:05, Richard Webb wrote:
The change from unsigned long to unsigned long long is a c++0x change (c++98 says the constructor takes an unsigned long, and c++0x changes that to unsigned long long), and i think it was changed just to allow larger values.
Okay, but of course, the bitset(unsigned long long) constructor should still support passing an unsigned long as argument.
Note that C++0x also adds the bitset(const char*) constructor. As proposed by LWG issue #778, by Thorsten Ottosen: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3019.html#778
And it says that the effect should be as if constructed by bitset(string(str)). This makes it illegal to use a null pointer, like 0, as this is not allowed for std::string.
The int constructor looks like an MS special that was added in the release candidate. I was wondering if it was added to help out with this other bug: https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/500122/bitset-5-...
Which then isn't a bug at all, but explicitly disallowed by the standard [lib.string.cons]. Bo Persson