From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-16 06:58:44
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Maddock" <john_maddock_at_[hidden]>
> There are so many *?*! workarounds that's the problem :-(
> You are right though, we may need to rework the headers sometime.
I think we have primitive definitions for enough of the traits that you
might be surprised at how nicely it decomposes.
> > 8. I think we need some new config macros, but I'd like someone who
> > done this before to add them if possible
> > BOOST_ELIPSIS_ARGS_DO_NOT_INVOKE_COPY_CONSTRUCTOR - for
> > that can resolve overloads to functions accepting elipsis arguments
> > without invoking the copy constructor of the actual argument. This
> > nonconforming behavior AFAICT but most compilers seem to allow it,
> > it's what allows is_convertible<T,U> to work when T is noncopyable.
> I think we can fix that by not passing object through elipses in
> is_convertible - see gcc implementation.
If that works, you could've saved me about 2 days' work by telling my
Oh, well... I leave it in your hands now.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk