Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-17 19:53:28

Next message: Joel de Guzman: "Re: [boost] [fusion] Illegal partial specialization error."
Previous message: Joe Gottman: "Re: [boost] implementation of moveconstructor (was [shared_ptr] dangerous implementation of moveconstructor)"
In reply to: Maurizio Vitale: "[boost] proto::or_ arity"
Next in thread: Maurizio Vitale: "Re: [boost] proto::or_ arity"
Reply: Maurizio Vitale: "Re: [boost] proto::or_ arity"

Maurizio Vitale wrote:
> proto::or_ (and I presume, but not verified, proto::and_) requires at least
> 2 arguments. It might be nice to allow 1 argument

I don't have strong feelings about this one. I see that in MPL, mpl::or_
requires at least 2 arguments. <shrug> Thx for the suggestion, I'll
consider it.

(and maybe 0 arguments as
> well).

Ick, no. It's not obvious what it should mean.

-- 
Eric Niebler
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

Next message: Joel de Guzman: "Re: [boost] [fusion] Illegal partial specialization error."
Previous message: Joe Gottman: "Re: [boost] implementation of moveconstructor (was [shared_ptr] dangerous implementation of moveconstructor)"
In reply to: Maurizio Vitale: "[boost] proto::or_ arity"
Next in thread: Maurizio Vitale: "Re: [boost] proto::or_ arity"
Reply: Maurizio Vitale: "Re: [boost] proto::or_ arity"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk