[boost] Re: call_traits/type_traits

From: jsiek_at_[hidden]
Date: 1999-12-22 18:58:10

Howard Hinnant writes:
 > 
 > I've been experimenting with using "type" in place of "value".  Which 
 > reads better?
 > 
 >      if (is_const<T>::value)
 >           ...
 > or
 >      if (is_const<T>::type)
 >           ...

Another possibility is something neutral like "ret" (for return)

 > I had been leaning toward "type".  But you having to remind me to put the 
 > "typename" in is a pretty strong argument for reserving "type" for type 
 > names! :-)
 > 
 > >Also, for
 > >portability, keep in mind that initialization of static members inside
 > >the class definition doesn't work with some compilers (even when they
 > >are bool/int/etc.) Might be easier to stick with enums.
 > 
 > OTOH, are there any compilers that do support enough partial template 
 > specialization to make this work, and don't support static const integral 
 > data initialization?

Good point. Probably not.

Cheers,

Jeremy