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

Subject: Re: [boost] Review Request: Boost.Itl; The Interval Template Library
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-24 18:54:24

2009/9/24 Jeff Flinn <TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden]>:
> 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.
>
>
Hi Jeff,
thank you for checking this. It looks like gcc and msvc are happy with
your code change. I am going to run a few more tests tomorrow before
committing the code to the sandbox (it's 1am in Berlin ;)
Good night
Joachim