Boost logo

Boost :

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
interpretation correct?

  -- Jesse

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at