Subject: Re: [boost] "Simple C++11 metaprogramming"
From: John Bytheway (jbytheway+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-22 07:43:13
On 2015-08-20 19:50, Bruno Dutra wrote:
> Now lets imagine the user nonetheless tries to evaluate a metafunction that
> instantiates to "nothing". The only error the compiler will raise will look
> similar to the following:
> error: no type named 'type' in 'struct metafunction<args...>'
> That's it, no scary internals exposed.
I'm not so sure that's wise. These "scary internals" are often vital
hints to debugging when code isn't doing what you expect. How confident
are you that such is not needed here?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk