Re: [boost] [mpl] Integral Constant is over specified

From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-05 14:47:45

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:uy7u32kxw.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> "Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:upsfhdfsd.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
>>> "Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Aleksey Gurtovoy" <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>>> news:m1k65tgzvi.fsf_at_meta-comm.com...
>>>>> Andy Little writes:

>>>>> In my use of integral constants, comparison for equality is the most
>>>>>> used operation, followed by arithmetic.  I have never used the next
>>>>>> ,prior functions. To me math ,comparison and logic operations are
>>>>>> more likely candidates for Integral Constant Requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO they are too heavy-weight. I understand your desire to have a
>>>>> concept encompassing these, but so far I don't see a compelling reason
>>>>> why Integral Constant should be such a concept (and I find it somewhat
>>>>> amusing that the title of this thread is "Integral Constant is over
>>>>> specified" :).
>>>
>>> Aleksey's point here is that you are now advocating *more*
>>> specification, which contradicts your subject line.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Yep.

Nope.  I am still advocating removing the next prior requirements, hence the
title of the thread.

>> Having next prior as requirements but not the usual operations on integers
>> strikes me as odd.
>
> Yes, but that's not necessarily a good criterion for determining what
> should be a concept.

mpl::bool_ is stated to be a model of mpl::IntegralConstant, but exercising the
requirements on it results in a failure to compile. Maybe the mismatch is 
acceptable to you, but I don't find it satisfactory.

regards
Andy Little