Subject: Re: [boost] [concept_check] addable
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-20 03:07:37
on Fri Apr 20 2012, lcaminiti <lorcaminiti-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> Dave Abrahams wrote
>> on Thu Apr 19 2012, lcaminiti <lorcaminiti-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>> Does this Addable concept definition make sense to you?
>> Well, it "makes sense," but...
>>> Is there any error?
>> That depends on what concept constraints you're trying to express. This
>> definition tests that x + y is convertible to T.
> I wanted to check that there exist an operator+ from T x T to T "T
> operator+(T, T)" so I think that is what Addable<T> checks...
Actually it checks that there exists an operator+ from T non-const
lvalue x T non-const lvalue to U, where U is convertible to T const&
> maybe the Sun's linker errors below are from something else (I've
> changed a regression test to get more info when it cycles tomorrow).
I don't know, but it seems unlikely. Probably Sun's linker just needs a
body for return_type().
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk