[boost] Re: call_traits/type_traits

From: Gabriel Dos Reis (Gabriel.Dos-Reis_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-12-22 19:09:31

Howard Hinnant <hinnant_at_[hidden]> writes:

| >Also I would suggest not giving the typedef the name "type" when it is
| >a static member. Perhaps "value" would be better?
| 
| 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)
|           ...
| 
| 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! :-)

I was preferring 'type', but I guess that doesn't really matter.  Just
pick what you like.

| >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?

I don't know of such compilers.  Probably Jeremy has some data...

-- Gaby