From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-06 07:05:23
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> I was suspicious of next/prior in integral_c<> from the beggining...
> That's why I asked what was the intended role of integral_c<>,
> and why does it feature next/prior.
It has 'next'/'prior' members because it's the easiest/most efficient
way to implement 'next/prior< integral_c<T,n> >::type' functionality
on compilers that don't support partial template specialization.
Of course, on a conforming compiler, they don't have to be there.
> If our interpretation is correct, next/prior would render the program
> ill-formed in some usages of integral_c<> with enums, so, if it is
> intended to represent 'integral constant expressions' and not just
> 'integral values' I think it should have next/prior removed.
That's what I'll do, for the conforming platforms.
Thanks for pursuing the issue,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk