"Jaap Suter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Is it possible that (under certain conditions) the following line:
>> >
>> > SNIP
>> >
>> > has a different type than this one:
>> >
>> > SNIP
>>
>> Uhm, in fact, these are always different:
>
> Mm, I still don't quite understand. Consider the following function:
>
> void foo( int_c< 0 > );
>
> Shouldn't the following code:
>
> foo( int_c< minus< int_c< 4 >, int_c< 4 > >::type > );
>
> Behave the same as this:
>
> foo( minus< int_c< 4 >, int_c< 4 > >::type );
We'd like it to. However, as Aleksey said, until we get typedef
templates, there's no way to make int_c<0> into the same type as
integral_c<int,0>. The result of
minus< int_c< 4 >, int_c< 4 > >::type
is
integral_c<int,0>
Aleksey will have to tell you why. Given the problems you're
experiencing, I'm not sure whether it's worth it.
--
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
