From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-11-29 11:47:13
Beman Dawes wrote on 11/29/99 10:23 AM
>Unless I am misunderstanding you, that would cause a reference to a
>reference, which is not allowed by the language rules.
I was just talking about changing the value of by_value, nothing more.
As good example uses have yet to be proposed for by_value, I was probably
premature to suggest the change.
>That was the
>case that caused Steve Cleary to develop the empty_member constructor
>argument workaround that eventually morphed into call_traits.
I think I got excited about call_traits for the wrong reason
(optimization). I think the true value is exactly what you're stating
here (avoidance of reference to a reference). And also if it can help
with the Dietmar/make_pair dance.
If I'm right about the optimization part, then that means that the list
of bool, char, short... is superfluous. It doesn't hurt, but call_traits
is just as good without the "by_value" specializations for the built-in
Then again, the answer to the optimization part my vary from platform to
platform. I'm not sure. (so let's defintely leave it in so we can
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk