"Joe Gottman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Robert Ramey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Is there such a thing as is_abstract_base<T> similar to is_polymorphic<T>
> ?
>>
>> Is such a thing possible? I could use it but have been unable to figrure
>> out how to do it.
>>
>
> I assume that you expect is_abstract_base<T> to return true if and only
> if it is it is impossible to create an object of type T, and you must create
> an object of some subclass of T instead. One problem with this is that
> there are two very different ways of requiring the user to derive from T.
> The most common way is to declare type T with one or more pure virtual
> member functions. The other way is to declare T so that all its
> constructors are protected, as in boost::noncopyable.
And neither one is detectable without causing a compiler error, to my
knowledge.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
