From: Arkadiy Vertleyb (vertleyb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-27 08:42:26
"Alexander Nasonov" <alnsn-boost_at_[hidden]> wrote
> Arkadiy Vertleyb <vertleyb <at> hotmail.com> writes:
> > That maybe OK for typeof. The bigger problem is that they are not
> > as strictly as specializations do. For example a derived class can be
> > matched, etc.
Well, there might exist alternatives to partial template specialization, and
I think Peder explored some of them in his "vintage" implementation. The
question is whether it worth it. I still think partial template
specialization is the most natural way of splitting a type into components.
Can't see why anything else would be better...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk