Subject: Re: [boost] [result_of] Allow result_of to work with C++11 lambdas
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-10 12:28:43
On 10/04/13 13:40, 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 don't see any reason to not always fallback to decltype as long as
decltype is available, even if incomplete/abstract types are not well
It would be in a case where the code would fail to compile without the
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk