From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-02 14:22:58
On 5/2/04 12:03 AM, "Douglas Gregor" <gregod_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.
There's documentation, right?
Could anything outside of Boost internals have a use for "result_of"?
Have other people looked at it? (You could have missed something and not
Didn't we have an incident at the last release where some "innoncent" code
was just plunked in at the last minute and broke a lot of stuff during
testing? Let's not do that again.
Maybe it can go under a quick-review.
-- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk