Tim Peters wrote: > Goodness no -- that kind of cleverness is usually buggy, and usually by > failing to account for that the moral equivalent of -sys.maxint-1 is a fine > product, but sys.maxint+1 isn't. Agreed. Also, signed values needn't be 2's complement numbers, and the behavior of signed overflow isn't guaranteed (it could saturate, for instance). The use of doubles makes sense from a portability standpoint. Or you could break out the signs and use unsigned longs with preprocessor (and configure) checks, being careful about performance impact. :-) For example, you might need to do something equivalent to this: #if HAVE_LIMITS_H #define MAX_POSITIVE_LONG_VALUE (LONG_MAX) #if -(LONG_MAX) == LONG_MIN #define MAX_NEGATIVE_LONG_VALUE (LONG_MAX) #elif (-(LONG_MAX) - 1) == LONG_MIN #define MAX_NEGATIVE_LONG_VALUE ((LONG_MAX) + 1) #else #undef MAX_POSITIVE_LONG_VALUE ... -Jerry
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4