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

From: Alexander Nasonov (alnsn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-21 11:05:20

John Maddock wrote:
> I don't think that it's necessary to be that complicated:
> 
> 1) If the type *is* really abstract, then numeric_limits support probably 
> doesn't make sense since the type is not a "value" type.  So filtering out 
> abstract types probably makes sense whatever.
> 
> 2) If a type is *not* abstract and the compiler supports numeric_limits then 
> we're OK anyway I think?

Exactly this reasoning drove me to the current fix.

> 3) If the compiler is broken and doesn't support is_abstract, then users can 
> always specialise is_abstract for a non-abstract polymorphic type if they 
> want the numeric limits code to kick in.

In this situation, I decided to use numeric_limits. As I wrote in
other post, we'll see how it works. If it doesn't work well, we can
switch to your proposal and update compatibility section of the
docs.

-- 
Alexander Nasonov
http://nasonov.blogspot.com
Chicago sounds rough to the maker of verse. One comfort we have:
Cincinnati sounds worse. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes --
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