Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] �
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-13 13:47:37

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr." <jhellrung_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] �

On 8/13/2010 10:03 AM, vicente.botet wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr."<jhellrung_at_[hidden]>
> To:<boost_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 6:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [boost] �

My question is, if you can enumerate all possible candidates for (b ? t
: u ) in terms of simple (C++03) transformations on T and U, then
there's no need for Boost.TypeOf. You can get by with the "sizeof()
trick", a la a slightly more elaborate boost::is_convertible. This
could make the implementation more complex, but more robust (for C++03),
which I think is an overall win. Do you agree?

So...back to my original question?

I'm definitely not saying with certainty that an implementation that
does not use Boost.TypeOf is possible. I'm just no expert on the
conditional operator, and I'm looking for an instance where (b ? t : u)
can't be determined from applying simple transformations (e.g., removing
reference qualifiers, or adding cv qualifiers) to T and U.


I'm not an expert either and I don't see how we can get it without typeof. Anyway, how the possible implementation could be more robust?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at