Re: [boost] Review Request: Boost.Itl; The Interval Template Library

Subject: Re: [boost] Review Request: Boost.Itl; The Interval Template Library
From: Jeff Flinn (TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-24 17:51:05

Jeff Flinn wrote:
> Hi Joachim,
> 
> Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
>> Dear developers,
>>
>> the Interval Template Library is now in a state
>> where I think it does conform the requirements
>> and guidelines for boost libraries fairly well.
> 
> I'm working with CodeWarrior version 9.x (yep I'm stuck with this):

That's version 9.4.

> Also Ambiguous use of partial specialization Errors in is_combinable.hpp 
> for the typedef's in:
> 
> template<class Type>
> struct is_interval_set_derivative<Type, typename Type::interval_type>
> {
>     typedef is_interval_set_derivative<Type, typename 
> Type::interval_type> type;
>     BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, value = 
> (is_interval_container<Type>::value));
> };

So isn't this comparable:

template<class Type>
struct is_interval_set_derivative<Type, typename Type::interval_type>
{
     typedef is_interval_set_derivative type;
     BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, value = 
(is_interval_container<Type>::value));
};

Isn't the unadorned name is_interval_set_derivative within the context 
of this struct definition the same as if it had the template parameters 
specified?

Modifying is_combinable in this fashion compiles in cw9.4. I haven't 
checked yet with MSVC or gcc.

Jeff