David Abrahams wrote:
> "Joel de Guzman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In fact, come to think of it, why not just:
> >
> > get<T>(v)
>
> That settles it; Joel is now my official name-meister!
Seems OK to me, too.
Some questions though:
1) Semantics of get<> are to fail at compile-time for tuples. Not so for
variant, any, etc. Is this a problem? Also, what about a "nothrow version"
of get?
2) Do most compilers allow overloads to be chosen by explicit template
instantiation arguments alone? That is,
template <typename T, typename U> void f(U & operand);
template <unsigned I, typename U> void f(U & operand);
int main() {
int i;
f<double>(i);
f<3>(i);
}
3) More minor: What should I rename boost::extractable and
boost::extractable_traits? boost::gettable is just so damn ugly <g>.
Thanks,
Eric
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
