My long-standing feud with std::numeric_limits may be coming to a close:
#include <iostream> #include <limits> int main() { std::cout // example output: << std::numeric_limits<short>::min() // -32768 << std::numeric_limits<short>::max() // 32767 << std::numeric_limits<int>::min() // -2147483648 << std::numeric_limits<int>::max() // 2147483647 << std::numeric_limits<double>::min() // 2.22507e-308...wait, what? << std::numeric_limits<double>::max() // 1.79769e+308 }
The minimum value for a double is basically zero? Get outta here.
Fortunately, C++11 came to its senses -- partially -- and provides std::numeric_limits::lowest as a way of getting what most people expect to get from std::numeric_limits::min:
#include <iostream> #include <limits> int main() { std::cout // example output: << std::numeric_limits<double>::lowest() // -1.79769e+308 (yay!) << std::numeric_limits<double>::max() // 1.79769e+308 }
It's not quite as sensible as boost::numeric::bounds, which defines both lowest and highest, but whatever. Baby steps. We'll get there someday.