From: Paul Moore (gustav_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-13 15:50:44
On 12 Jan 2001, at 12:05, Daniel Frey wrote:
> "Moore, Paul" wrote:
> > Urk. This is all that fancy stuff that Howard and John have been having so
> > much fun with. Isn't there some sort of
> > boost::most_efficient_way_of_passing_a_parameter<T> that does what I want?
> Uhm... wasn't this spelled boost::call_traits<T>::param_type? Else I
> misunderstood the reason for call_traits<>::param_type completely... :-/
That's the one. Excuse my excessive sarcasm. I just have a
recollection of the discussions when this was being developed, and
of barely understanding the issues...
PS IIRC, one of the issues was all the nasty compiler workarounds
needed to get templates like this working correctly. As I use one of
the worst culprits (MSVC) can someone confirm that
call_traits<>::param_type works on MSVC? My testing indicates
that it does, but who knows what edge cases I've missed...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk