Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [result_of] now uses decltype on release branch
From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-04 22:00:30

On 9/5/2012 9:03 AM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Joel de Guzman <djowel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 9/5/2012 12:53 AM, Michel Morin wrote:
>> Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>>> However! This makes the current result_of code not an exact replacement
>>>> to decltype which allows this variation of above:
>>> Right. boost/std::result_of is not an exact replacement to decltype,
>>> since decltype allows SFINAE but boost/std::result_of doesn't.
>>> [...]
>>>> If Fusion's invoke used decltype instead of
>>>> result_of, it would have worked.
>>> I tried to compile my test case for fusion::invoke with SFINAE-enabled
>>> result_of, but it failed to compile. After adding a "fallback type" to
>>> SFINAE-enabled result_of, then the test case runs fine.
>> The following code (attached) demonstrates the problem of
>> Fusion::invoke with the current decltype based result_of.
> It seems like the fact that it worked with the TR1-protocol-based result_of
> was brittle at best. Replace foo with a function object with a properly
> restricted result template and it likely wouldn't work with
> TR1-protocol-based result_of, either.

Wrong. TR1 result-of works with function objects. See attached. It works
with both nested result_type and struct result;

The reason it works is that TR1 result_of does not attempt the
match the argument types on invalid (substitution failure) overload

> Comment
>> out the first line for the code to use plain decltype vs. result_of.
>> Notice that because result_of does not allow SFINAE, it barfs when
>> the compiler tries the first overload of invoke (substitution failure).
>> The compiler could have chosen the second overload.
> Wasn't this fact (the difference between result_of and decltype) already
> pointed out earlier in this thread?

I don't know. All I am saying is that this poses real problems
that go beyond correct usage of result_of. I do not have time
to look through all the posts in this thread.

>> I see no other way to get around this problem of result_of. I am
>> getting inclined to use decltype directly in fusion instead of
>> going through result_of. Problems like this kinda defeats the
>> purpose of decltype-ifying result_of, but heck.
> Is this a recently discovered problem with the use of result_of in Fusion?


> How come it didn't come up before?

Because BOOST_RESULT_OF_USE_DECLTYPE wasn't there before.

> The question is: should we allow SFINAE for result_of. I think now
>> that we should.
> Wouldn't this create a portability problem between C++03 and C++11? Or are
> you suggesting this for C++11-only code? Or are you suggesting to likewise
> modify result_of in C++03 to allow SFINAE, via something like Eric's
> can_be_called metafunction?

I don't know. I will not have enough time to follow through with this anyway
so I'll leave it to the result_of people to "do the right thing". In any
case, I can work out a solution/workaround.


Joel de Guzman

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