Subject: Re: [boost] [mpl]iter_fold_if Forward Backward rationale?
From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-09 07:11:01
On 04/08/09 10:35, David Abrahams wrote:
> on Sun Apr 05 2009, Larry Evans <cppljevans-AT-suddenlink.net> wrote:
>> Just as the ForwardPredicate is "augmented" with protection
>> against dereferencing the end<numbers>::type in this code:
>> shouldn't the BackwardPredicate also be augmented with the same
>> protection here:
> Well, it doesn't need to be; if it did, tests and uses wouldn't compile
> Just think about how you'd implement it and it should become obvious why.
With the change shown in attachment, the mpl tests
passsed, as shown in the vault's:
P.S. AFAICT they passed because I saw no **failed**
in the .out file.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk