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

[Joel de Guzman]

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.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net