Re: [boost] [type traits] is_literal_type ?

Subject: Re: [boost] [type traits] is_literal_type ?
From: Jonathan Wakely (jwakely.boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-03-02 15:01:54

On Mar 2, 2013 6:02 PM, "Robert Ramey" wrote:
>
> - any C++ not delivered with an implementation is not a conforming C++
> compiler.
> - no C++ compilers (as far as I know) are delivered with this type trait
> - hence, there are no conforming C++ compilers available.

Are you sure?
I know it's in libstdc++ and I bet libc++ has it too.

> What is even more odd to me, is that it seems that a type trait required
> by the standard library can't be implemented by the language as
> specified by the standard.

There are several such traits. Traits tell you properties of a type, some
properties cannot be detected without compiler "magic", and the library
trait is the standard interface to that magic.

What would you prefer, an operator like noexcept? Why would that be better?