Greetings, At the moment I'm anticipating a formal review of the binary_int implementation sometime in October. This seems like a good time to suggest that anyone who's curious take a look at the pre-release version of binary_int. Anything caught now improves the likelihood that the October review will be the final review. The binary_int template allows the compile time expression of integer binary literals. Usage looks like this: unsigned int regValue = binary_int<1000,1001,0011,0000>::value There is no run-time code overhead for using this template; all overhead is at compile time. I expect these binary literals to work any place that an integer literal would work at compile (not preprocessing) time. The template is designed to allow binary values up to 64-bits to be expressed, although it has only been tested up to 32-bits to date. You'll find the template, its documentation, and a small unit test at: http://boost-consulting.com/vault/ under binary_int.zip In addition to the issue of whether the template works for you, there are four points I'm curious about: o Some compilers used to complain when the most significant bit of a binary_int was set. I've fixed that problem as well as I know how. Do any compilers still see this problem, and does it produce warnings or full fledged errors? o Does the template properly produce 64-bit values on a 64-bit compiler? The unit test only goes up to 32-bits since neither of my compilers support 64-bit compilation. o Are the names 'binary_int' and 'binary_nibble' good names? Pavel Vozenilek, who has very kindly been my Boost mentor, suggests 'bits' and 'nibble' may be better names. o There's a BOOST_WORKAROUND in the template so I can do something vaguely BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT like. Pavel suggests that the workaround would be better solved in a general form that all compilers can accept. What would be a better solution to the BOOST_WORKAROUND? Thanks for your consideration. Scott Schurr