why not to define std::common_type<int32_t, uint32_t>::type as int64_t?

Message-ID	<0bc7c923-085e-4089-b10a-78f022b41ff7@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Newsgroups	comp.std.c++
From	Walter Mascarenhas <walter.mascarenhas@googlemail.com>
Subject	why not to define std::common_type<int32_t, uint32_t>::type as int64_t?
Organization	unknown
Date	2013-05-29 01:45 -0600

Show all headers | View raw


  Probably one reason would be that we would
need to do it by hand (i.e., it could not
be inferred from the the ternary operator)

  However, defining std::common_type<int32_t, uint32_t>::type as
int64_t seems to be more consistent for me.

   Am I missing something?

              walter.


--
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try posting with your ]
[ newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-cpp-submit@vandevoorde.com ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]

Back to comp.std.c++ | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

why not to define std::common_type<int32_t, uint32_t>::type as int64_t? Walter Mascarenhas <walter.mascarenhas@googlemail.com> - 2013-05-29 01:45 -0600
  Re: why not to define std::common_type<int32_t, uint32_t>::type as int64_t? Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler@googlemail.com> - 2013-05-29 10:43 -0600
  Re: why not to define std::common_type<int32_t, uint32_t>::type as  int64_t? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-05-30 13:57 -0600

csiph-web