Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-11 11:44:10

"Matt Calabrese" <rivorus_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On 7/10/06, Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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
>> instantiated.
> Yes, that's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is should I have a nested
> type at all in the case of ambiguity? This would make accessing result_of<
> Type >::type ill-formed, however, it keeps result_of< Type > instantiable.

AFAIK the only way to accomplish that is with a specialization of
result_of that has no nested ::type. Am I missing something?

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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