RE: [boost] Re: Implicitly-Callable Functions in C++0x?

From: Paul A Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-14 12:44:10

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Daniel Frey
| Sent: 12 March 2004 13:53
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: [boost] Re: Implicitly-Callable Functions in C++0x?
| 
-problem.
| 
| > 2.couldn't you just make a default choice? Let enable_if 
| disable some if
| > there is an ambiguity?
| 
| Not an option IMHO. A default is exactly what should be avoided at all
cost. If 
| someone uses quad-doubles or RWDecimal, he has a reason to do 
| so. Silently injecting doubles (or any other default) could do a lot
of 
| damage and thus will work against the acceptance of the library. Safe 
| use with no surprises is a lot more important than convenience and a 
| default type isn't safe.

Agreed strongly - for me, the most important point about constants is
ensuring that you get EXACTLY the right value for the type.  For fancy
UDTs (eg quad-doubles or RWDecimal or intervals) this is tricky but THE
objective.

Paul

Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
[phone]  [phone]
mailto: pbristow_at_[hidden]