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
-- 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk