Ovanes Markarian wrote:

> Robert, somehow I do not get your proposal. How do you consider an
> if-branch, which is not going to compile, i.e. compilation error. Do
> you propose, to ignore that branch and just state: "OK, if there is a
> compilation error, that must be eliminated without any errors to the
> end-user". I don't think this can work. Therefore there should be a
> special language construct, which states: "if there is a compilation
> error, than it is safe to be ignored during the compilation"  

 

 

 

and of course the same would occur for any expression

which resulted in a 0 or false at compile time.

 

 > Sorry it took me a bit longer, but here are my ideas....
> Code from Slide 12 of Andrei's presentation at Going Native 2012:
>
>
> template<class T>
> struct container
> {
>   ...
>   static if(debug_mode<T>::value)
>   {
>     class const_iterator { ... };
>     static if(std::is_const<T>::value)
>     {
>       typedef const_iterator iterator;
>     }
>     else
>     {
>       class iterator { ... };
>     }
>   }
>   else
>   {
>     class const_iterator { ... };
>     clas iterator { ... };
>   }
> };
>

and my view would be that removing the "static" wouldn't change

anything in the program - so why is it necessary.

 

> template<class PointerWrapper>
> struct grab_pointer_type
> {
>   static if(has_element_type<PointerWrapper>::value)
>   {
>     typedef typename PointerWrapper::element_type pointer_type;
>   }
>   else
>   {
>     typedef typename PointerWrapper::value_type pointer_type;
>   }
> };