Re: [boost] tr1/test_function_tricky trickier than needed

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-08 11:00:15

Peter Dimov wrote:
> The only reason for test_function_tricky.cpp to not compile with
> boost::function is the presence of the following two lines:
>
> BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT((::boost::is_base_and_derived<std::unary_function<int,
> long>, std::tr1::function<long (int)> >::value));
>
> BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT((::boost::is_base_and_derived<std::binary_function<int,
> char, double>, std::tr1::function<double (int,char)> >::value));
>
> that check for the (highly questionable and not particularly relevant)
> requrement that function<> should derive from unary_function or
> binary_function in some cases.

Questionable maybe, but none the less part of the TR1.

> I think that these two lines need to be moved to a separate test.

The only difference between this test and the "non-tricky" one is the
presence of those two lines.  The test is intentionally pedantic.

John.