From: Alexander Nasonov (alnsn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-21 11:00:03
John Maddock wrote:
> If the only issue is abstract types, can't we simply filter out abstract
> types before invoking numeric_limits? Note that on compilers that don't
> support is_abstract fully the class defaults to the same behaviour as
> is_polymorphic, and while that may then filter out some classes that
> shouldn't be on broken compilers, it's a quite reasonable compromise.
That's what I did except that I never use is_polymorphic. Instead,
I rely on numeric_limits not complaining about abstract type. We'll
see how it goes when automated regression tests turn their attention
to HEAD and particularly to
Colored diff: http://tinyurl.com/2rwg8r
The reason I asked this question was a possibility of similar
failures. For example, abstract class could be replaced with
noncopyable class. But all compilers I tried don't complain about
noncopyable classes in numeric_limits. Though, I don't know what
is a difference between these two kind of classes.
Anyway, I added ./libs/conversion/test/lexical_cast_noncopyable_test.cpp.
-- Alexander Nasonov http://nasonov.blogspot.com Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment. -- Jim Horning -- This quote is generated by: /usr/pkg/bin/curl -L http://tinyurl.com/veusy \ | sed -e 's/^document\.write(.//' -e 's/.);$/ --/' \ -e 's/<[^>]*>//g' -e 's/^More quotes from //' \ | fmt | tee ~/.signature-quote
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk