From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-26 14:16:39
Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> "Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> wrote
>>Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
>>>"Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger_at_[hidden]>
>>>>Would it be possible to allow Typeof registration of partially specialized
>>>It seems that it would be very hard to achieve any decent syntax :-(
>>Without thinking about the macro interface for a moment it would be technically
>>possible, wouldn't it?
> Yes, I think it would.
It's hot ;-).
> Right now I am skeptical about the possibility to implement anything
> readable, but you are welcome to convince me otherwise ;-)
Well, after reading Dave's post I believe it might be possible to allow
REG_SPEC((typename T),(std::set<T,std::less<T>,std::allocator<T> >))
(with some extra work that is -- by specializing for a function with a special
Here are some more straightforward versions which do not seem that hard to read
to me (although they involve counting commas):
REG_SPEC((typename T),2,(std::set<T,std::less<T>,std::allocator<T> >))
// ^--- comma count
REG_SPEC((typename T),3,(std::set<T,std::less<T>,std::allocator<T> >))
// ^--- tuple arity
REG_SPEC((typename T),(3,(std::set<T,std::less<T>,std::allocator<T> >)) )
// \--- pp-array used as a string -----------------/
Anything that works with your taste among it?
<by the way>
Our list correspondence is often hard to read because our clients seem to
disagree on where to break lines.
I set the line width down to 80 characters (which I figure should be acceptable
-- it used to be 82 for quotes plus code) but the problem seems to persist. Is
there anything that you can do about it, perhabs?
</by the way>
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk