Re: [boost] numeric_limits<Abstract> or how to fix 1358600?

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
./libs/conversion/test/lexical_cast_abstract_test.cpp.

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