Re: [boost] [Review] Boost.Type Traits Extension by Frederic Bron

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Boost.Type Traits Extension by Frederic Bron
From: Vicente Botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-15 04:28:16

Frédéric Bron wrote:
> 
>> The default void return type should probably be changed to some internal
>> dummy type.
>> This would allow to check if the return type is actually void if so
>> desired.
>>
>> class dymmy_type;
>>
>> template < class LHS, class RHS=LHS, class RET=dymmy_type>
>> has_operator_op;
> 
> I think your proposal seems reasonable and would improve the library.
> I will try to see if I can implement that.
> 
> 
Hi,

are you saying that you can check if the return type is actually void? I
believed that this was not possible, but who knows ...

Or are you thinking on replacing the default RET value to specific class to
say don't check the return type (e.g. dont_check), and generate acompile
error when RET is void?

Best,
Vicente

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Review-Boost-Type-Traits-Extension-by-Frederic-Bron-tp3353283p3355996.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.