From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-29 09:55:43
I think I've been misinterpreted: I'm not trying to fix type2type, though I
don't love the name. I was just exploring some ideas. Sorry for wasting
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Submission: typelist
> From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> [int2type, type2type]
> > > Yes: they are aliases, not identities; we have strong typing, after
> > They're only aliases if you look at them as types. I'm looking at them
> > metafunctions. They are identity metafunctions which return the same
> > type/value which has been passed to them.
> No. They generate an unique type based on their argument. Their functional
> aspect is rarely, if ever, used and is probably there just for
> Had type2type been a function, the nested typedef would be the
> 'type.' As it is, there is never a need to use it.
> Please, there is nothing broken with these two. Why attempt to "fix" them?
> There are much more important issues to settle.
> Peter Dimov
> Multi Media Ltd.
> Info: http://www.boost.org Unsubscribe:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk