From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-09 21:26:54
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Eric Niebler:
>>> I'm glad we know how to write the identity function object in C++0x.
>>> What about in C++03?
>> I'd put the C++03 overloads in an #else block; apart from that, this
>> identity function object is correct.
> OK, thanks. Just for my own understanding, leaving the C++03 overloads
> in -- as well as the nested result<> template -- doesn't make it wrong,
> correct? Just not minimal.
Doesn't the Arg& overload lead to an ambiguity? The Arg const& overload
looks harmless. I don't have an && compiler handy at the moment to check it
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk