[boost] Re: notation question

From: Dirk Gerrits (dirk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-08 14:50:24

Dirk Gerrits wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
> 
>>
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>>> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I'd prefer the latter variant, so that non-broken platforms use more 
>>>> natural
>>>> syntax. Another question is whether we could use only the second 
>>>> version.
>>>> Theoretically, if you call the second version on const string, then 
>>>> InputT
>>>> should be deduced as "const string". You can then write a simple 
>>>> wrapper to
>>>> select const_iterator or iterator.
>>>>
>>>> The only problem is, IIRC, borland drops "const" on template arguments
>>>> sometimes, and that's not possible to fix. Also, the "simple wrapper"
>>>> requires partial specialization. So, I'm not sure this approach is
>>>> viable, either.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are mostly-transparent solutions.  Something like:
>>>
>>>     // find_first sequence const version
>>>     template< typename InputT, typename SearchT >
>>>     inline iterator_range< typename InputT::const_iterator >
>>>     find_first_impl( const InputT& Input, const SearchT& Search, 0 )
>>>     {
>>>         ...
>>>     }
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm guessing the last parameter should be "int"?
> 
> 
> Shouldn't it be long? I think I saw overload pairs in some Boost header 
> (from Boost Python I believe) where one overload had a dummy int 
> parameter and one overload had a dummy long parameter.
> 
> I assumed it was to workaround the partial ordering bug but I'm not 100% 
> sure. But Dave's upcoming reply should clarify things. ;)

David Abrahams wrote:
 > No, sorry. It should be "..."

Ahh, OK.

Dirk Gerrits