On Wednesday 09 of January 2013, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 16:10 +0200, Noel Grandin wrote:
maybe we need
OUString::valueOfInt32(sal_Int32)
that does the cast for us?
At least it'll be less noisy,
Is there really such a big difference between
OUString::valueOf( sal_Int32( 0 ))
and
OUString::valueOfInt32( 0 )
?
Yes, I know I used static_cast<>, but that's because of my undying love for
all these integer problems, so I wanted to have a little fun as a
compensation :). And I'd like to get rid of all this one day.
and we can document in one place why it's necessary.
So that other people don't have to search: According to my reading of the
standard (mainly 13.3.3.1.1 and 13.3.3.2 [*]), this is because when choosing
which conversion for overloaded functions is better, the standard treats all
integer conversions[**] the same. I'm a bit confused by "the rank of S1 is
better than the rank of S2," in 13.3.3.2, since reading also 4.13 I would say
that long and long long have different rank, therefore int->long should be
prefered to int->long long, but a test with all GCC, Clang and MSVC shows
that having f( long ) and f( long long ) makes f( 0 ) ambiguous :(. Makes me
wonder if there is some obscure reason for this or if just the person coming
up with this was having a bad day.
[*] The draft at
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3035.pdf .
[**] With the exception of promotion of types smaller than int to (unsigned)
int.
Looks less error prone to me; doesn't suffer from odd side-effects of
un-related type changes as badly either;
What makes you think so? Having the type directly in the function name is
almost the same like the explicit cast. If you cast incorrectly, you'll just
as well get incorrect implicit cast when calling the function renamed
function.
hopefully fixes the perennial
64bit vs. 32bit issues. Can be in-lined to produce ~identical code, we
could deprecated the old valueOf() methods just to beef up the idea that
we're continuing to evolve the sal API ;-)
Any profound objections ? [ not that I've time to do it myself of
course ].
Uhm, but we already have more than enough Hungarian notation all over the
place. If the API is to evolve, it should not do so by going backwards :(.
What I think would work better would be having overloads for each
integer[***]/float type (or a template), all of them still named valueOf().
That means one wouldn't need to bother with what the type actually is and the
functions would just do the right thing (well, as long as the type is not
sal_uInt8 or sal_uInt16, since, SAL types madness striking again, those are
actually sal_Bool resp. sal_Unicode).
[***] That meaning language integer types, not the SAL stuff. Overloading on
the latter would not change anything.
--
Lubos Lunak
l.lunak@suse.cz
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.