David Abrahams said: > "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Augustus Saunders said: > >> I wouldn't be overly concerned. I'd find this to be a programmer >> error (passing a type to a template that doesn't meet the template's >> requirements). Concept checking libraries can even be employed to >> insure such mistakes don't happen (assuming the concepts are well >> defined enough for such checks to be written), though this would be a >> QoI issue in the implementation of the template. > > Those concept checks can only look at syntactic and type constraints, > not semantic (behavioral) ones like the ones they're worried about.
That's why I said "assuming the concepts are well defined enough for such checks to be written". What I'm thinking is that a type with deep comparison semantics might be required (by the concept definition) to include a typedef or some other public interface that could be used to distinguish it. However, thinking this through more carefully, such a concept definition would exclude pointers needlessly, so you are right, there's probably not a way to do this. William E. Kempf _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
