> From: Thorsten Ottosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > What would the advantage be over using boost::numeric_cast > directly, and > > thus explicitly? > > you would't have to worry about if you forgot a numeric_cast > somewhere in > your code > or if you compiled on a platform with different ranges for > built-ins which > suddenly > could make conversion problems appear.
That you don't have to worry is only true to a small extent - you still need to worry, by protecting the code *somwhere* with a try/catch block. This is also true for numeric_cast, but then it's straightforward to grok the code when reading it. Obviously, the (potential) problems are always there as soon as one starts mixing signed/unsigned types, and when assigning to a potentially smaller type; they must always be checked regardless. > that depends on what the "problem" is. I would say that an > _undetected_ > false conversion > is the biggest problem. Agreed! > >Doing it "manually", and acknowledging the potential problem by > > using numeric_cast is (in addition to ensuring correct behavior) > > self-documenting, a property that I think is rather important. > > by using a wrapper, you also acknowledge a potential problem. Yes, and when writing code like this: safe_numeric<unsigned char> t=u;, a reader can understand that - the code has documented itself. But I don't see an advantage over writing unsigned char t=numeric_cast<unsigned char>(u); in fact, the resemblance with a cast operator makes numeric_cast especially intuitive. On the other hand, using typedefs such as "Char", would convey nothing to the casual reader. > I might also be beneficial when you are chaning a variable > from one type to > another; the change > might cause conversion problems some different place in the > code and/or > require numeric_cast > to be inserted. By using wrappers this would be detected. True, but the price of this detection is using wrappers everywhere, which defeats the purpose, IMO; how should a maintainer know which parts of the code contains potential conversion issues when *all* of the code is implying that is the case? Bjorn _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
