----- Original Message ----- From: "Aleksey Gurtovoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Paul Mensonides wrote: > > > What do you mean by "tweaked"? > > With the cleaned up "type deduction success/error?/failure garbage" :) By cleaned up, I mean any template function when the declaration is instantiated yields a semantically invalid function type, in *any* way, it should remove the function from the overload set. Right now, there is no such thing as an third "error" alternative. The standard only mentions type deduction failure or success. There is *no way* that type deduction can succeed with a semantically invalid declaration. Likewise, there is no way it can fail according to the "list" of ways type deduction can fail. The only other possibility is to have a compile-time error. If this is the result, the mere presence of a template function with a certain name can completely break the overload set of that name entirely. If it was changed to make type deduction fail if it yields a semantically invalid declaration, it would be even easier to implement that and many other things. Paul Mensonides _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
