Re: [boost] Re: compile time member detection

From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-23 00:57:47

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

| Mat Marcus <mat-boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
| 
| > --On Saturday, November 15, 2003 1:33 PM -1000 David Abrahams
| >   <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
| >
| >> Mat Marcus <mat-boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
| >>
| >>> The current proposals address this, but as I mentioned earlier
| >>> there was some pushback from the compiler vendors leading to at
| >>> least one workaround proposal that in my mind resembles named
| >>> conformance.
| >>
| >> Really??!  I thought the big problem they had was with structural
| >> conformance (?)
| >>
| >
| > Um yes. That's what I was trying to say. I'll try again. They had a
| > problem with structural conformance and Dietmar's workaround reminds
| > me of named conformance. Does that agree with your recollection?
| 
| I don't know what "Dietmar's workaround" is, sorry.

Dietmar suggested a declaration mechanism along the lines of 

   RandomAccessIterator My::Container<T>::iterator;

to assert that a given type conforms to a given concept.  
Many people have suggested the same.  
In fact, we did consider something like that. 

-- Gaby