From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-10 13:57:57
Matt Calabrese wrote:
> On 7/10/06, Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Do you have a specific scenario in mind?
> Yes. For clarity, it is clear that result_of< Type >::type should be
> ill-formed with ambiguity, however, should result_of< Type > be
> instantiable at all when the function call would be ill-formed?
Instantiating the definition of result_of<Type> causes the instantiation of
the declarations of its members, so this would imply that when its nested
type member is ill-formed, the definition of result_of<> cannot be
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk