Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [type traits] is_literal_type ?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-03-02 13:04:49

Rodrigo Madera wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:32 AM, John Maddock
> <boost.regex_at_[hidden]>wrote:
>> Any chance of a boost implementation for is_literal_type?
> Robert,
> Can you give an example of how it's usage would be?

Sort an interesting question. I'm imagining something like:

template<class T>
int f(T const & t){
        return t;
        return g(t); // do some sort of conversion

in order to skip instantiation/invokation of g when it isn't necessary in
this example.

> I suspect that you may want something illegal in's part of the
> standard - see section 20.9.2 - so ...

- any C++ not delivered with an implementation is not a conforming C++
- no C++ compilers (as far as I know) are delivered with this type trait
- hence, there are no conforming C++ compilers available.

What is even more odd to me, is that it seems that a type trait required
by the standard library can't be implemented by the language as
specified by the standard.

I'm wondering if I should go to one of these standards meeetings

Robert Ramey

> Rodrigo
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

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