Boost logo

Boost :

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
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         \
	  | 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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at