Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-22 07:28:51

"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> writes:

>>> integral_constant<bool,b> derives from mpl::bool_<b> for backwards
>>> compatibility.
>> For still more backward compatibility we ought to have a conversion
>> in the other direction.
> I realised that right after I posted (as usual, post first think later.
> Doh!)
> Are there any drawbacks to making the constructors of these types
> non-trivial?

Only the usual ones, I guess ;-)

>>> Stupid question but why doesn't your function do:
>>> template <class T>
>>> typename is_fundamental<T>::type f(T)
>>> {
>>> return is_fundamental<T>::type();
>>> }
>> Stupid answer: broken compiler workaround.
>> Anyway, this isn't a big deal. Maybe not even worth acting on.
> OK, how about just using "is_fundamental<T>()" directly, no need to
> access it's ::type member at all really ?

It's not an obstacle for me at the moment, so I'm okay -- but it did
surprise me.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at