Re: [boost] [TTI] Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [TTI] Review
From: Nathan Ridge (zeratul976_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-11 03:26:23

> On 7/10/2011 7:59 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>
> > HAS_MEMBER_VARIABLE(has_myvar, [static] myvar)
> > HAS_MEMBER_FUNCTION(has_myfunc, [static] myfunc)
>
> I can easily combine BOOST_TTI_HAS_MEMBER_DATA and
> BOOST_TTI_HAS_STATIC_MEMBER_FUNCTION into HAS_MEMBER_VARIABLE, which
> covers either case, and BOOST_TTI_HAS_MEMBER_FUNCTION and
> BOOST_TTI_HAS_STATIC_MEMBER_FUNCTION into a HAS_MEMBER_FUNCTION, which
> cover either case. But then the end-user will lose the ability to
> distinguish between a 'member data/static member data' or 'member
> function/static member function'. Do you really think that is the
> correct thing to do just because you think there are too many macros ? I
> do not.
>
 
I think Lorenzo was suggesting having a single macro whose
implementation checks whether the second argument starts
with the token "static"; if so it performs a check for static
functions only, otherwise it performs a check for nonstatic
functions only.
 
Checking whether a macro argument starts with a particular
token is certainly doable; see for example [1].
 
Regards,
Nate.
 
[1] http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2011/03/66612.php