Re: [boost] [intrusive] Comments on interface changes and stateful value_traits (long)

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-26 10:41:28

on Fri Aug 24 2007, Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> As you know, one of my main concerns is that a container explicitly set
> with some options, should have the same type as another container
> defined with the same options in a different order. I meant:
>
>   list<T, base_hook<my_base_hook>, constant_time_size<false> >
>
> should have the same type as:
>
>   list<T, constant_time_size<false>, base_hook<my_base_hook> > l;
>
> My preferred alternative is the more verbose:
>
> typedef list_options
>   < base_hook<my_base_hook>
>   , constant_time_size<false>
>   >::type options_t;
>
> list<T, options_t> l;
>
> that guarantees the same type for the same options.

What is the advantage to that over

make_list
  < base_hook<my_base_hook>
  , constant_time_size<false>
  >::type l;

??

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com
The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com