Subject: Re: [boost] [result_of] Allow result_of to work with C++11 lambdas
From: Nathan Crookston (nathan.crookston_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-10 12:16:27
Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> Le 09/04/13 07:50, Nathan Crookston a écrit :
> Jeff Hellrung suggested 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.
> how a Boost library as Boost.Thread could use the new boost::result_of?
> Should it provide different implementations depending on whether
> BOOST_RESULT_OF_USE_DECLTYPE, BOOST_RESULT_OF_USE_TR1, or
> BOOST_RESULT_OF_USE_TR1_WITH_DECLTYPE_FALLBACK are defined?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Which piece of boost thread would
need to provide different implementations depending on the macro defined?
I don't think users usually care about which version of result_of is
actually selected -- unless deduction doesn't work, which is the case for
C++11 lambdas currently. Do you have an example where the user would need
to write their code differently depending on the chosen result_of
implementation? I can only think of times where a user may wish to
explicitly select one type.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk