"Edward Diener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Maybe it should be refactored out into the MPL if it is generic enough to do > so and then others can use it more easily in their own policy-like > classes ?
I really think that MPL is an inappropriate place for it. It would be very useful as a separate library, though. Boost.Python uses the technique for template parameters and for function arguments, so we'd want to support both. > If it is not generic enough, maybe the technique can be documented > somewhere. I know as a user of policy-like classes the biggest difficulty is > having to choose the correct optional parameters when one wants to change > any one of them from the default. If your technique can get around this > limitation while providing multiple policies, I would love to read about how > it works so that if I ever design policy-based template classes I can use it > also. It can, provided that you can write a predicate metafunction which distinguishes each type (policy) you're interested in. When two of the optional arguments can have identical interfaces and/or other detectable requirements, my technique breaks down. -- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost