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?
| > 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
| someone uses quad-doubles or RWDecimal, he has a reason to do
| so. Silently injecting doubles (or any other default) could do a lot
| 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
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
+44 1539 561830 +44 7714 330204
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk