Re: [boost] is there a boost "storable_type"?

From: Cromwell Enage (sponage_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-18 10:48:16

--- John Maddock wrote:
> Stjepan Rajko wrote:
> > So far, I've been using:
> >
> > template<typename T>
> > struct storable : public
> > boost::remove_const<typename
> > boost::remove_reference<T>::type > {};

[snip]

> Your code will only work for class types right?  If
> that's an acceptable limitation then it will do
> what you want, or did you mean:
> 
> template<typename T>
> struct storable
> {
>   typedef typename boost::remove_const<typename
>      boost::remove_reference<T>::type > type;
> };

I thought both class definitions would be equivalent
from a user's perspective, e.g.:

    BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT((
        boost::is_same<
            storable<int const&>::type
          , int
        >::value
    ));

I've been using the first style (the one Stjepan
presented) on primitive types without problems.

                              Cromwell D. Enage

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com