From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-17 09:03:20
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
> >> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> > I don't see why you expect remove_pointer(T) to work when T is not a
> >> > pointer.
> >> I think that's a reasonable expectation, if by "work" you mean return
> >> the original type without modification. That's what it does for "int"
> >> arguments, for example.
> > I would argue that remove_pointer should cause a compile-time error when
> > applied to a non-pointer. *p doesn't just "conveniently" return p when
> > applied to a non-pointer.
> > Either way though, it should be consistent, i.e. if it works for int, it
> > should work for everything.
> I think silent non-modification is a more-useful behavior; it saves on
> if_<is_pointer<T>, remove_pointer<T>, identity<T> >
> which is sometimes what you want.
I feel the same, especially looking at remove_const, remove_volatile and
remove_cv. Of course we could decide to treat those three different from
the rest, but this is IMHO neither needed nor useful.
-- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk