From: Daniel Krügler (dsp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-28 02:03:46
David Abrahams schrieb:
> Daniel Krügler <dsp_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>So you mean, if I use integral_c<T,n>::value, the definition of value
>>is provided by boost?
That is really nice and as I said in my first posting, you can blame me
now for incomplete testing. It seems to me, that VC7.1 is an open
question, but that is part of the other posting of you.
>>According to my assumptions (which might be wrong, as I said) here
>>applies the same problem, because integral_c<T,n> also contains a
>>BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT and thus a possibly addressable object, but I am
>>willing to be corrected, of course.
> You stand corrected. If you don't believe me: use the source, Luke.
Thanks for the correction.
>>To make my request more clear: I am **not** speaking of a programming
>>style which **should** take advantage of using integral_c<T,n> instead
>>of an addressable (constant) object, I am speaking of daily programming
>>practice. Since e.g. integral_c<T,n>::value is not a boost-internal
> I don't know what any of that means, sorry.
All initial answers implied to me, that the corresponding definitions
where not provided by boost, so I just was fighting for them ;-)
Just forget that b..dozer.
>>const long myvalue = foo(); // run-time determined value
>>const long max_value = std::max(myvalue,
>> boost::mpl::integral_c<long,15>::value); // Combine compile-time and
>> // run-time information here
>>without knowing too much about the internals of boost::mpl (besides the
>>fact, that it might be necessary to additionally add some further mpl
>>source files into my project).
> It works. Try it or use the source.
I will do that, thanks Dave.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk