From: John Maddock (John_Maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-12-23 07:56:54
>I've been playing around with an alternate implementation of is_const,
and was wondering what if any compilers might support it:<
That was the first thing I tried but it fails under C++ Builder 4 - I'm not
actually sure if its legal either - the standard is very vague about which
partial specialisations are legal - but says that they are matched "like a
function overload" under the partial ording rules - since f(int) and
f(const int) are the same type, I suspect that the partial ordering rules
should fail in this case - any language experts arround?
>Also I would suggest not giving the typedef the name "type" when it is
a static member. Perhaps "value" would be better? <
I would agree with that - any member ending in "type" normally means that
the member really is a type!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk