From: Peder Holt (peder.holt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-10 07:03:47
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:49:41 -0700, Larry Evans
> On 12/10/2004 03:19 AM, Peder Holt wrote:
> > Still, the problem in his post applies to typedefs.
> > If A<T>::B is a nested class or struct under A<T>, and not a typedef,
> > deduction should always be possible.
> Yes. Our posts crossed. I had same idea.
> > In the case where B is a typedef:
> > typedef typename some_class<T> B;
> > you can deduce some_class<T> instead of A<T>::B
> Do you mean in the case of Roni's example, that
> you can deduce by substitution, i.e.
> can_deduce: select<B, int, int *>::type
> can_deduce: select<(C1<T>::value != C2<T>::value), int, int *>::type
can_deduce<T>::type is either int or int*, so we need to make
specializations for int and int*, and can ignore can_deduce<T>
Type deduction of nested typedefs would as far as I can see require that
can_deduce<T>::type be a separate type from int and int*.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk