> 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;
Those should not work: or maybe you want them to do nothing? Whatever you can't remove the pointer from a member pointer because the result is not a valid type. However the boost implementation should compile (so it's a bug), I'll look into it when I get some space. > typedef test::add_const< int( int ) >::type t5; > typedef test::add_volatile< int( int ) >::type t6; > typedef test::add_cv< int( int ) >::type t7; That compiles but emits warnings on gcc, fails to compile on other compilers, the docs say: "The same as "T const" for all T" which means that function types are effectively banned (because cv-qualifed functions are banned), we can filter the template through is_function to avoid that though - I'm not sure how common the situation would be though. > typedef char t8[ test::is_convertible< double, int >::value ]; That one issues a warning: for other compilers we are able to suppress that, if you have any ideas on how to do so with gcc I'd be happy to hear about it. > typedef char t9[ !test::is_class< int( int ) >::value ]; Generates warnings on gcc only, these have been reported and confirmed as a gcc bug: http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&p r=8503 > typedef char t10[ !test::is_enum< int( int ) >::value ]; again that's a gcc 3.2 bug. > I won't try to fix any of these anymore. I neither understand the > documentation nor the implementation of boost's type-traits. I tried to > make the code better but AFAICS there is no interest in improvment. There's always interest - but please remember that: a) we have limited time for testing new ideas - the more you can do to make this easy the better, especially as there is a new boost release imminent, along with a deadline for committee meeting papers real soon now :-( b) experience suggests that almost any changes to type traits break something, sorry but that's the way it is. c) several of your ideas I did test on other compilers, but didn't get very far (I should have reported this before, sorry) your is_function version doesn't work with any of the popular win32 compilers for example - and yes I know that the standard says that it should work :-( John Maddock http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
