From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-02 08:29:37
Douglas Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Saturday 01 May 2004 11:45 am, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>> I think I have some free time as well... I'll need to get reacquainted with
>> the existing result_of code (in the sandbox) before I know what to ask for.
> It looks like the result_of implementation is in pretty good shape. I've
> expanded/fixed it to deal with a few cases I'd missed before. I'll check it
> in Two general issues remain: "support" for broken compilers and a matter of
> Broken compilers can't use result_of: without partial specialization, it's
> completely unusable. Also, compilers that don't support SFINAE can't detect
> result_type. I'm not sure how limiting this will be, but obvious Borland, HP,
> and pre-7.1 Microsoft are all toast.
> As for the protocol side of things: does anyone think we need to review a
> library that is (1) merely scaffolding for other libraries, (2) trivial, and
> (3) already blessed by the standards committee? Methinks not.
We probably don't need to. Maybe we should anyway, just to give the
fast track review process some exercise? I don't really have a
position on what the answer should be.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://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