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

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-19 05:21:08

Cromwell Enage wrote:
> --- 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
>    ));

???? There's no nested ::type member in the first version.

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

Don't you end up inheriting from the primitive type in that case????

Confused yours,  John.