From: Jesse Jones (jejones_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-18 17:53:08
>At 01:36 PM 10/17/2000 -0700, Jesse Jones wrote:
> >I'll concede that the letter of the standard implies that const int's are
> >not integral types and and by analogy const pointers are not pointers.
> >However I find it difficult to believe that this is what the committee
> >intended ...
>If you want to formulate this into a question, I'll post it to the C++
>committee's core mailing list reflector. Like postings to the boost list,
>it helps to keep it brief and ask a specific question. But basically the
>paragraph I partially quoted above is pretty clear about the problem.
OK, how about this:
The boost group has a number of template meta-functions used for
identifying types. They include functions like is_standard_signed_integral
and is_pointer. However there's some question about how these should work
for const types. Section 3.9.1 of the standard says that "there are four
signed integer types: signed char, short int, int, and long int". Section
3.9.3 says that these types are cv-unqualified and the cv-qualified
versions are distinct types. This seems to mean that const int is not a
signed integer type. Is this interpretation correct and is it what the
committee intended to say?
The pointer case is similiar: the first sentence in section 3.9.3 can be
read to mean that const pointer types are not pointer types. Is this
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk