[C++-sig] Re: indexing_v2 status update

[David Abrahams]

Joel de Guzman <joel at boost-consulting.com> writes:

> Raoul Gough wrote:
>
>> David Abrahams <dave at boost-consulting.com> writes:
>> 
>>>Joel de Guzman <joel at boost-consulting.com> writes:
>> [snip]
>> 
>>>>Looks cool to me ;-) My only concern is: what if the bits of an
>>>>unsigned int runs out? Unlikely? What if the methods identifiers
>>>>are types instead in a special namespace and specifying the
>>>>methods is done using an mpl typelist? Example:
>>>
>>>One should at the very least use an unsigned long.  You're only
>>>guaranteed 16 bits with unsigned int.
>> I thought about this, but figured there weren't any 16-bit compilers
>> that would compile the rest of the code anyway. Are there any real
>> platforms where the compiler supports all that template machinery and
>> has 16-bit ints (maybe some configurations of gcc)? I suppose it
>> doesn't actually cost anything to go to unsigned long...
>
> Maybe I ought to write the static bitset thing. I wrote one before.
> I'll see if I can get the prototype. There's one here:
> http://spirit.sourceforge.net/dl_more/Spirit_StaticSet.h
> I'll see if I can make it MPLish.

It'd be easy to base it on vector_c<unsigned long, ....>

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com