From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-22 12:11:39
Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:40:52 -0400, David Abrahams
> <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>So, should I just remove it?
> Well, not because it isn't implementable.
Sorry, I can't parse that. Should I remove it or not? Is it
Maybe your code below answers those questions...
> Admittedly, it isn't the most useful thing in the world either, so I
> don't have a strong opinion about its inclusion ;)
>>Looking back at that thread, I'm
>>surprised I included it in this header because I don't think I ever
>>really understood what you were saying.
>>I don't think there's an alternative to using the comma operator that
>>will work both when dst_type is a dependent type in a template and
>>when it is not dependent, because of differences in the need for
> Good point. Then we could attack the expression part of static_cast.
> What about using the conditional operator? I don't know how that
> interacts with broken compilers, though. If you like it, I could
> provide the tests.
I like it. Maybe it's time to document this stuff, too ? ;-)
-- 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