------- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com  2010-09-05 22:22 
(In reply to comment #0)
> An alternative solution seems to be to use this same machinery in the
> definition of iterator_traits so that when a class T is not a pointer and does
> not provide iterator_category (and possibly the 4 other types),
> iterator_traits<T> is empty (instead of containing 5 broken typedefs).

I don't think I can work on this very soon, and I also believe that
__is_iterator can be useful anyway, maybe Jon has more tho say (or do) in this
area... Anyway, are you sure that, given the current wording in C++0x, such
iterator_traits is strictly conforming?


paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot
                   |                            |com


Reply via email to