🚀 go-pugleaf

> ==========Steve Clamage, 12/4/95==========

> In portable code, assume only the minimum ranges required by the
> standard.

This is what causes the trouble as certain minimum number
of bits really matter in many cases and the highly conservative,
standard minimum ranges are unrealistic.  64 vs. 32 vs. 16 bits
make enormous differences in much code.  For a random
number mill, 16 bits is generally inadequate.  For the whole
random number abstraction, the difference between 32 and 64
bits doubles the length of the sequence that has full representation.
This is but one example.  There are just too many cases
where you need to do better than the hyper-conservative
stance of the C standard or the C++ DWP.
 
> That problem is particularly easy to resolve in C++. Create a
class that
> manages the bit-fiddling, and reimplement only that class for each
> different architecture. The remainder of the source code is unchanged.

The issue is performance by both the software and the programmer.
Having exception-free built-ins with better granularity guarantees
matters a lot.

Good Day
Dick
Dick.Menninger@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM



---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]