>From: "Hartmut Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> David Abrahams wrote:
>
> > > // The following expands to
> > > //
> > > // typedef char (&sizeN_t)[N];
> > > //
> > > // for N = 1..BOOST_MAX_SIZETYPE_COUNT
> > > #define SIZETYPE(z, n, nil) \
> > > typedef char (&size ## n ## _t)[n]; \
> > > /**/
> >
> > Careful; isn't the symbol "_t" reserved to the implementation
> > in this context?
>
> The purpose of the macros was to generate a couple of
> typedef char (&sizeN_t)[N]; // for N=1..MAX
> Statements, so _t is never seen by the compiler.
>
> But anyway the solution proposed by Paul is cleaner, so I vote for it.
>From Paul's posting:
> You can achieve the effect you want easily:
>
> template<int I> struct size_descriptor {
> typedef char (& type)[I];
> };
>
> typedef size_descriptor<1>::type yes_type;
> typedef size_descriptor<2>::type no_type;
>
> ...or something similar, which solves the problem once and for all.
Looks good. What should we call it? size_descriptor, like here?
Regards,
Terje
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
