Re: detecting integer over/underflow

[Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>]

>       __overflow(type, value)

> That returns false if value fits in type, and true if not.

For your purposes, this sounds reasonable.  That is, it sounds as
though it would satisfy the desire you cite.

But I think there is a subtle psychological hazard here.  Even under
the __type_fit name, this gives the impression of being a "does this
computation overflow" (or "does this computation fit into this type")
test, which it isn't.  For example, there's a strong temptation to
write something like

        __type_fit(intmax_t, x * y)

to find out if the multiplication result fits in an intmax_t.  But of
course such a test will never fail for intmax_t, and even for smaller
types can fail in unobvious ways, as in

        int x;
        int y;
        ...
        __type_fit(int,x*y)

which also will never fail, even if int is smaller tha intmax_t and the
multiplication does indeed overflow, because the multiplication will be
an int*int->int operation, truncated before it's tested.

This is not a problem if it's used only in the cases you've designed it
for.  But, after seeing the disaster that NULL has become, I have no
real faith that people will use such a thing only within its original
design parameters.

/~\ The ASCII                             Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML                mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email!           7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B