From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-09 20:20:16
"David Abrahams" wrote
> "Andy Little" writes:
>> "David Abrahams" wrote
>>> "Arkadiy Vertleyb" wrote
>>>>> result_of<minus_(int, _1_)>::type f = 3 - _1;
>>>>> Does this direction make sense?
>>>> Any particular reason why BOOST_TYPEOF is not an option?
>>> It requires type registration, whereas this approach should not.
>>> That's the only reason.
>> FWIW I would prefer to live with BOOST_TYPEOF and type
>> registration. I have no doubt that registration will have its
>> problems but only by familiarity will they be solved.
> Huh? How will familiarity with the problem help? I can't ask my
> library's users to register types.
Why not? We all want decltype and auto in the language dont we? BOOST_TYPEOF is
the closest we have. Show your users how to use it while we wait for language
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk