Subject: Re: [boost] review request: addition to type_traits library of is_less_comparable<T, U> and others
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-09 11:42:33
On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:06 AM, Jeffrey Bosboom wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 6:28 AM, Frédéric Bron wrote:
>>> I prefer void because it is shorter but this could make people think
>>> it will check for operator return void... which is not the case; so
>>> maybe the long version boost::type_traits::any_return is better.
>> By that rationale shouldn't we also require the 3rd parameter to be wrapped in is_convertible_to<...> so people don't think it's requiring a return type of exactly R (e.g. bool)?
> Would this also allow a user to override this behavior when they want to ensure an exact type match?
I suppose so, but seriously, I was not suggesting adding all this complication. I think it should be kept simple and only generalized as far as is proven necessary by real use cases.
-- David Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk