Subject: Re: [boost] ï¿½
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jhellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-13 12:49:50
On 8/13/2010 9:16 AM, vicente.botet wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr."<jhellrung_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [boost] [chrono] v0.4.5 Documentation update + warnings removal + bug fixes
>> On 8/10/2010 11:00 AM, vicente.botet wrote:
>>> I have made some minor modifications to the Boost.Chrono library as requested on these mailing lists. The implementaton is stable.
>>> Even if the review's date is not annonced yet, it will be great if some of you make a pre-review, so the conflicting issues are managed before the review.
>> Is it necessary for common_type to fallback to Boost.TypeOf in the
>> absence of decltype? In what situations is (bool ? T : U) not either T,
>> U, or some additional const/volatile qualifications on T or U, possibly
>> transposed with some reference or pointer qualifiers?
>> In other words, when does (bool ? T : U) manufacture some new "3rd type"
>> out of the blue?
> (bool ? T : U) is incorrect as the ?: operator don't works on types but on expression. This is exactle the role of typeof. Are I'm missing something?
Okay, sorry, my fault for being lazy ;) Replace (bool ? T : U) with (b
? t : u); b of type bool; t of type T; u of type U; and t and u are
rvalues unless T and U (respectively) are (lvalue) reference types.
Additionally, common_type operates on types, not expressions, so you
know the types you're working with in the hypothetical conditional
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk