Re: Dumbed-down

Seungbeom Kim wrote:
 > kanze wrote:
 >>> Seungbeom Kim posted:
 >>>> template <class Target, class Source>
 >>>> inline Target numeric_cast(Source x)
 >>>> {
 >>>> assert( x is in the range of Target );
 >>>> return static_cast<Target>(x);
 >>>> }
 >>>> (I'm not sure how to express in C++ what I wrote inside assert( );
 >>> assert( numeric_limits<Target>::max() >= x );
 >> assert( std::numeric_limits< Target >::max() >= x
 >> && (! std::numeric_limits< Target >::is_signed
 >> || (std::numeric_limits< Target >::is_integer
 >> ? std::numeric_limits< Target >::min() >= x
 >> : -std::numeric_limits< Target >::max() >= x)) )
 >> ;

 > Thanks for your idea.

 > But this causes numeric_cast<signed>(1) to fail the assertion,
 > because 'std::numeric_limits< Target >::min() >= x' is false.
 > You might have meant 'std::numeric_limits< Target >::min() <= x'

Obviously:-).

 > but this causes numeric_cast<signed>(1000000000U) to fail the
 > assertion (where int is 32 bits).

Or even numeric_cast< signed >( 1U ).

Yuck. You're right. Worse: I'm not sure right off of a good
solution. I suspect that you'd have to do something involving
the signedness of Source as well. (If the first test passes,
and !std::numeric_limits< Source >::is_signed, no further tests
are applicable.)

Note that my expression also fails in the reverse case:
     numeric_limits< unsigned >( -1 )
Again, -1 gets converted to unsigned in some of the
comparisons.

The best I can come up with rapidly is:

Untested, but there's got to be a simpler solution.