From: John Maddock (john_maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-22 07:06:55
> I don't doubt that there is a use for the current implementation. What
> saying is that calling it "value_type" is wrong because that term is used
> already in standard C++, and with a different meaning.
> call_traits::value_type should be like iterator_traits::value_type -- a
> non-const, non-reference that can be used to store temporary variables in
> algorithms and whatnot. I suspect that this is the more common usage
> scenario (<-- blind asseriton), and it is the behavior people would
It depends, compressed_pair relies on the current behaviour: is you create
compressed_pair<int&, int&> then you would want it to store references
Using call_traits<remove_reference<T>::type>value_type is not so hard IMO.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk