Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #80978
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions |
| Date | 2021-09-01 12:28 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <sgo9n3$2fa$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <hOudnfXpudHWjbL8nZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <s88uig9ljth6ueakm5lsgsh4rksmat3h5u@4ax.com> <sgna7c$rjo$1@dont-email.me> <2p4vig5j33ie0e70toakjh2qgpocikhg3a@4ax.com> |
On 9/1/21 10:53 AM, Barry Schwarz wrote: > On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 09:30:53 +0200, Bonita Montero > <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> if (x < ULONG_MAX/3) >> Better use numeric_limits<unsigned long>::max() > > Just out of curiosity, in what way is it better? Given that it is > more characters to type, does it compile faster? Does the resulting > program occupy less memory? Will the program execute faster? The only advantage I can see doesn't apply when the type is named explicitly. std::numeric_limits<T>::max would be a much better approach to use if T is an arbitrary integer type.
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Detect Math Errors in Functions Joseph Hesse <joeh@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 07:31 +0200
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2021-08-31 23:54 -0700
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 09:30 +0200
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2021-09-01 07:53 -0700
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 17:50 +0200
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-09-01 12:28 -0400
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-01 17:38 +0100
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-01 09:50 +0200
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-01 16:38 +0100
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-01 19:25 +0200
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Hope Rouselle <hrouselle@jevedi.com> - 2021-09-06 11:04 -0300
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2021-09-06 00:20 -0300
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-09-06 07:23 +0200
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2021-09-06 20:34 -0400
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-01 18:22 +0000
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 21:02 +0200
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-02 11:53 +0200
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 21:10 +0200
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-02 05:31 +0200
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-02 07:51 +0200
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2021-09-06 20:47 -0400
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2021-09-06 20:24 -0700
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-09-08 10:20 +0000
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-08 13:17 +0200
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Hope Rouselle <hrouselle@jevedi.com> - 2021-09-08 10:24 -0300
Re: Detect Math Errors in Functions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-09-07 09:10 +0200
csiph-web