From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-31 21:39:38
"Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> These aren't very interesting metafunctions, since they're all
>> equivalent to mpl::always<implementation_defined> ;-)
> Oops sorry perhaps read 'undefined',' user defined' not implementation
> defined :-)
My point was to say that you are proposing we add something to the
library, but you haven't shown us anything but a sketch of a few empty
metafunctions. How can anyone comment?
> Not to stay that way just havent had time to write some simple examples.
> (pow_<int_,int_> should be easy!) Could use one of my own but doesnt mean
> much to many -->
> The problem is I have specialised plus, minus, multiplies etc. for use in
> 'expression templates'. (think is right term).
> However it would be odd to put these in separate namespace.
?? Specializations can only go in the same namespace as the primary
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk