On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 18:46:47 -0500, David Abrahams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, why hardcoding that dependency?
>
>You don't have to; it was just an example implementation. Another
>implementation would be:
>
>template <class T>
>struct const_min
>{
> BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(T, value = /*whatever*/);
> typedef const_min<T> type;
> typedef T value_type;
>};
Ah, sure! :-) Now this is really metaprogramming-compatible rather
than boost::mpl-dependent. Gone! Thanks for the idea.
[...]
>> I still don't understand... it must be one of those C++ programmers
>> eccentricities ;-)
>
>Bingo.
:-)
Genny.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
