David Abrahams wrote: > > "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > I don't see why you expect remove_pointer(T) to work when T is not a > >> > pointer. > >> > >> I think that's a reasonable expectation, if by "work" you mean return > >> the original type without modification. That's what it does for "int" > >> arguments, for example. > > > > I would argue that remove_pointer should cause a compile-time error when > > applied to a non-pointer. *p doesn't just "conveniently" return p when > > applied to a non-pointer. > > > > Either way though, it should be consistent, i.e. if it works for int, it > > should work for everything. > > I think silent non-modification is a more-useful behavior; it saves on > > if_<is_pointer<T>, remove_pointer<T>, identity<T> > > > which is sometimes what you want.
I feel the same, especially looking at remove_const, remove_volatile and remove_cv. Of course we could decide to treat those three different from the rest, but this is IMHO neither needed nor useful. Regards, Daniel -- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: http://www.aixigo.de _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
