"Bug" in comment (x2)

[alexis_wilke]

This is very low priority!

Hey guys,

In this file:

  http://boost.org/boost/integer.hpp

there is the following comment which says '9=unsigned
long' and the code says '9=unsigned char'. Should
someone get rid of that comment or fix it?

  //  specializatons: 1=long, 2=int, 3=short, 4=signed
char,
  //     6=unsigned long, 7=unsigned int, 8=unsigned
short, 9=unsigned long
  //  no specializations for 0 and 5: requests for a
type > long are in error
  template<> struct int_least_helper<1> { typedef long
least; };
  template<> struct int_least_helper<2> { typedef int
least; };
  template<> struct int_least_helper<3> { typedef short
least; };
  template<> struct int_least_helper<4> { typedef
signed char least; };
  template<> struct int_least_helper<6> { typedef
unsigned long least; };
  template<> struct int_least_helper<7> { typedef
unsigned int least; };
  template<> struct int_least_helper<8> { typedef
unsigned short least; };
  template<> struct int_least_helper<9> { typedef
unsigned char least; };

[alexis_wilke]

Logged In: YES 
user_id=554061
Originator: YES

Hi guys,

There seems to be many bad comments... 8-)

You may want to delete two lines in that file:

  boost_1_33_1/boost/iostreams/detail/push.hpp

Both mention:

  Macro: BOOST_IOSTREAMS_DEFINE_PUSH_CONSTRUCTOR(mode, name, helper)).

with (1) the wrong parameters and (2) the wrong name in one case.

Thanks,
Alexis

[Daryle Walker]

Fixed comments in the repository, both in comment:1 and the main description, as [39062]