Member Avatar for Lucius_1

Click Here

I've started working on a basic template class that can help automate range checking in specialized numeric types. My inspiration for this comes from the ranged types found in languages like Pascal and Ada. Currently, the focus is on integer types, but I've designed it to be adaptable for floating-point types as well (although I may need to revisit this aspect later on).

While it's still in the early stages, this template class aims to simplify the definition of numeric types that don't fit the typical signed and unsigned sizes of 8/16/32/64 bits. It allows the client-programmer to choose a base type, set lower and upper bounds, and define how the class should handle underflow or overflow situations. The available options currently include wrapping around, saturating at the boundary, or throwing an exception. Additionally, all the standard arithmetic operators will be supported.

Now, here's my question: Do you believe this class would be genuinely useful to write, and do you think others would find it valuable enough to warrant making it publicly available? Can you envision any practical scenarios where this class would simplify the development of real-world projects for other programmers?

  • 3 Contributors
  • 2 Replies
  • 136 Views
  • 1 Month Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by Alex_169

Dani AI

Generated

This is a solid and practical idea for many domains — embedded systems, protocol/bitfield parsing, fixed-point or unit-safe code, and any place you want a small, enforced domain invariant (age, percentage, sensor range). The key to wider adoption is clear, predictable semantics and low-cost defaults: make the common cases cheap and obvious, and make the tradeoffs explicit.

Implementation notes that will make the template useful and easy to adopt:

  • Prefer compile-time bounds (non-type template parameters) and C++20 concepts to restrict the base type. That lets the compiler remove checks when not needed and enable constexpr use.
  • Use a policy-based overflow/underflow design chosen at compile time so safety doesn’t force runtime overhead in hot paths.
  • Define conversion rules clearly: prefer explicit conversions from raw integers to avoid accidental narrowing, and use std::common_type to implement mixed-type operators. Handle C/C++ integral promotions by performing arithmetic on a suitable wider type and then applying the chosen policy.
  • For floating point, document NaN/Inf and rounding behavior up front; saturating floats are trickier than integers.

To help the repo and replies on this thread: asked to see code — add a minimal reproducible example and a short README snippet that shows typical declarations and operator semantics (for example, one line showing a type alias and a boundary test). found the idea hard to follow — include a one-paragraph plain-English summary and 3–4 usage examples that cover normal, out-of-range, and mixed-type cases. Add unit tests for boundary conditions, CI badges, and a small benchmark comparing to raw types so readers can judge cost vs benefit.

Cautions: document implicit vs explicit conversions, watch for template bloat, and test around promotions and signed/unsigned interactions. When those items are clear and the defaults are cheap, this kind of ranged type becomes genuinely useful in real projects.

Recommended Answers

All 2 Replies

Member Avatar for AndreRet

Please show us what you have in your code, quite difficult to say based on your description.

Member Avatar for Alex_169

It's really difficult to understand.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.