On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:14:50 +0200, Rani Sharoni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is very nice technique. Just notice that you also need to handle void,
functions and arrays types.
Abstract classes, functions and array types will fail the completion on the
burn conversion operator since they are
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:09:26 +0200, Rani Sharoni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
// fire-prevention
template typename T
BurnT ref(T*);
You can improve it to deal with qualified function types (you can't have
pointers or references for such types):
Right. However the version with the (pointer
Rani Sharoni wrote:
You can probably use a similar approach to implement yet another
is_class (not void, reference and doesn't have an implicit standard
conversion to bool).
I wonder whether int () const has an implicit standard conversion to bool.
;-)
Dave Gomboc wrote:
No, I would prefer
#if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__HP_aCC, =33900) || BOOST_WORKAROUND(__VisualAge,
=12345)
template bool cond, typename T struct enable_if;
#else
template bool, typename struct enable_if;
#endif
I already explained the reason: C++ compiler vendors
No, I would prefer
#if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__HP_aCC, =33900) ||
BOOST_WORKAROUND(__VisualAge, =12345)
template bool cond, typename T struct enable_if;
#else
template bool, typename struct enable_if;
#endif
I already explained the reason: C++ compiler vendors use Boost
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:34:24 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think even Intel 7 is using the old front-end, but Intel 6
certainly. I don't know whether you'll _notice_ a difference, though.
I don't know what is, in context, the old front-end here. However
Intel C++ 7 for
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:02:58 +0100, Daniel Frey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I started to implement my own type-traits to see if I can do it and to
learn something. While doing so, my design lead me to some dependencies:
is_enum needed is_class
Daniel, my apologies in advance if this is just a
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 03:12:13 +0100, Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 01:14:17 +0100, David Abrahams wrote:
Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I won't try to fix any of these anymore. I neither understand the
documentation nor the implementation of boost's
Gennaro Prota wrote:
More generally, cleaning up implementations is IMHO a must do at
this point of the boost evolution. Rather than worrying about ordinary
releases, I think we should have the library undergoing a global
review, focused on eliminating the noise that have been accumulating
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And lambda_support, in turn, includes so much preprocessor stuff that
I think it is more than what I would have in the whole application
hadn't I included is_integral.
Only on non-conforming compilers like vc6/7. On the rest,
lambda_support.hpp is
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
#include boost/type_traits/detail/bool_trait_def.hpp
I end up including:
- template_arity_spec.hpp
- bool_c.hpp
and
- lambda_support.hpp (!!!)
And lambda_support, in turn, includes so much preprocessor stuff that
I think it is more than
See also the discussion about a general coding guideline to always
provide a name for template parameters. Here, the maintainer already
did the right thing when he received the patch.
If the maintainer hid the compiler brokenness completely, then they did
the wrong thing. If they didn't,
Dave Gomboc wrote:
See also the discussion about a general coding guideline to always
provide a name for template parameters. Here, the maintainer already
did the right thing when he received the patch.
If the maintainer hid the compiler brokenness completely, then they did
the wrong
After thinking about it longer, I still think that there is a problem. The
code seems twisted to me. Let me try to explain it, I start by some
observations (all for the case of
BOOST_TT_HAS_CONFORMING_IS_CLASS_IMPLEMENTATION not being set):
is_scalar is based on 3.9/10, which says that
On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:48:13 +0100, John Maddock wrote:
Why can't I see them?? Look at:
OK the implementation is:
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, value =
(::boost::type_traits::ice_and
::boost::type_traits::ice_not ::boost::is_unionT::value
::value,
On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:37:34 +0100, Daniel Frey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it's just me but the boost source is feeling more
and more unmaintainable given the extrem use of MACROs to workaround
each and every problem some compilers have. Am I the only one who feels
uncomfortable with it?
No,
From: Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 00:23:26 +0100, Paul Mensonides wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
template class C, typename T struct is_member_function_pointer T
C::*
{ enum { value = is_function T ::value }; };
Peter Dimov wrote:
Are you sure that T C::* const is a type?
Isn't it? It's a constant pointer to a member of class C. T may be the
type of a member variable or (although GCC don't detect it) a function
type. At least this is my current understanding. Do you have a reason to
ask about it? I
Peter Dimov wrote:
From: Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Dimov wrote:
Are you sure that T C::* const is a type?
Isn't it? It's a constant pointer to a member of class C. T may be the
type of a member variable or (although GCC don't detect it) a function
type. At least this
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 00:23:26 +0100, Paul Mensonides wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
template class C, typename T struct is_member_function_pointer T
C::*
{ enum { value = is_function T ::value }; };
template class C, typename T struct
20 matches
Mail list logo
