[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #47416] call of overloaded 'octave_value(Array<int>&)' is ambiguous

[John W. Eaton]

Follow-up Comment #10, bug #47416 (project octave):

Should we change the Array<T> constructors so that we provide constructors for
T = {u,}int{8,16,32,64}_t and that's it?

If so, then we should not have any duplicate constructors because of some
typedef.

However, what should happen for these constructors?  Should they create
integer octave_values?  That would be OK with me, but then we might have to be
more careful when we actually do want to create double precision octave_value
objects from integers.  I think we are fairly careful about that now, but I'm
not sure every case is handled correctly.

We already have constructors for T = octave_{u,}int{8,16,32,64}, but not for
the bare C types.

Should we deprecate the value extractors that use C names like int_value,
short_value, long_value, etc.?

Is it a good idea to always use sized int types?  Then at least you know what
range of values you can expect.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?47416>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/