"Pavel Vozenilek" wrote
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;
*** implementation I expected the binary_int to be in boost namespace. I would expect use of mpl maths on binary_int e.g typedef boost::binary_int<0001> left; typedef boost::binary_int<0010> up; typedef mpl::or_<left,up> left_n_up; I understand about use of enums, however they can cause problems in addition where some compilers dont recognise e.g addition of two enums etc. *** design I would expect value_type to reflect the number of nibbles e.g boost::binary_int<0000,0001> // unsigned char boost::binary_int<0000,0000,0001> // unsigned short or unsigned int dependent on platform dependent type Traditionally these types are regarded as unsigned are they not? Often they are used for port flags which require a specific size which may be 8 bits and will then require a downcast in some cases. Should have the self 'type' member Overall the use of nibbles I like. I find the comma separators between nibbles good. Without them it is often difficult to find out where you are in a mask. This is how I like to work when using bitmasks. *** implementation I didnt look closely. *** documentation I found it a bit sparse, because there are no operations etc. On structure I believe that the documentation should be separate from the utility stuff. Personally I think separation of any stuff into utility is a bit arbitrary anyway as most of boost libraries are utility . It is not the same as the usual boost format making documentation for e.g enable_if hard to find. *** Use the library? I tried it out in VC7.1.No problems, but not much functionality... Lack of bost namespace was unexpected. I thought this was a requirement on proposals? ** should it be a Boost library? Yes, but only on condition that the library is much more fleshed out. Overall I like the idea, but I dont think that it has been worked on enough yet. It should have the masking operations. They should probably use the mpl operators. I also beleive that binary literals should be part of the languge anyway.
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 );
I prefer templates to macros. , so I prefer Scott Schurrs version. I also happen to like the nibble separators. Also I would like a bit of separate documentation. regards Andy Little