Boost logo

Boost :

From: Arkadiy Vertleyb (vertleyb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-01 09:28:09


"Aleksey Gurtovoy" <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> wrote
> Larry Evans writes:
> > Is the following supposed to compile:
> >
> > enum
> > visitor_numerals
> > { visitor_n0
> > , visitor_n1
> > };
> >
> > typedef mpl::vector_c<visitor_numerals,visitor_n0> vec_viz_type;
> > typedef mpl::at_c<vec_viz_type,0>::type vec_viz0_type;
>
> Theoretically, I see no good reason to disallow it.

I think that one major problem is that you promise next<> and prev<> on
integrals. It would be quite problematic to satisfy this for enums staying
in the same enum type.

Regards,

Arkadiy


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk