Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [result_of] Allow result_of to work with C++11 lambdas
From: Nathan Crookston (nathan.crookston_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-09 23:11:21

Hi all,

Daniel Walker wrote:

> Eric Niebler wrote:
> > On 13-04-08 10:50 PM, Nathan Crookston wrote:
> >> Jeff Hellrung suggested[1] a fallback to decltype *only* for compilers
> >> which had nonconforming decltype operators. Thus the only behavioral
> >> change would be that some code which before would produce an error would
> >> now compile and run correctly.
> >>
> >> A ticket[1] with a patch (including tests and docs) was created. Daniel
> >> Walker suggested further discussion on the list, which this attempts to
> >> provoke. I think this would be a nice improvement for a set of
> often-used
> >> compilers -- the list of boost-users questions whose problems could be
> >> addressed by this patch is extensive (and can be provided, if desired).
> >>
> > For the record, I'm in favor of this. Daniel Walker is the maintainer of
> > result_of, but I've occasionally made changes myself. I haven't looked
> > at the patch in question, but it's been on my todo list for a long time.
> > My todo list has gotten pretty long, so if you or Daniel beat me to it,
> > bonus.
> I like the idea as well. I could devote some time to this and look at the
> patch again if there is any interest.

I actually updated the patch to use the BOOST_NO_CXX11_* style macros, and
merge cleanly with current trunk. I'll attach it to the ticket when I'm at
my computer with the patch. The basics of the current patch are unchanged,


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