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
>> 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
> 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 www.boost-consulting.com