On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:01:08 +0100, Peter Dimov wrote: > Daniel Frey wrote: >> typedef test::remove_pointer< int A::* >::type t1; typedef >> test::remove_pointer< int A::* const >::type t2; typedef >> test::remove_pointer< int A::* volatile >::type t3; typedef >> test::remove_pointer< int A::* const volatile >::type t4; >> >> typedef test::add_const< int( int ) >::type t5; typedef >> test::add_volatile< int( int ) >::type t6; typedef test::add_cv< >> int( int ) >::type t7; > > Why do you expect these to work?
Because add_const< int& > returns int&. I was under the impression that a) type-traits should compile if possible and b) that in the case of add_const the input type is returned unmodified if it cannot exist as a const version. If a user wants to make sure that it actually added a const, he can use is_const, is_same, etc. to make that sure - without compile failures. But I may be wrong on this one as I was for all other cases where I tried to understand the code. >> typedef char t8[ test::is_convertible< double, int >::value ]; >> typedef char t9[ !test::is_class< int( int ) >::value ]; typedef >> char t10[ !test::is_enum< int( int ) >::value ]; > > These should work. If they don't, the implementation is broken. :-) The first one only gives a warning, is_class and is_enum fail. Can anyone comfirm this or am I again missing something? Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
