"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > [...] > Anyone interested might want to read the actual proposal. See > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1406.pdf
Yes, I found that on my own, and noticed that of the two "mutually exclusive designs", the one with one feature was chosen over the one with three features. And it seems that the sole justification was the equivalence to the metafunction form, as Dave A. states. It seems that partial specialization using template typedefs is indeed useful, but is it really more useful than deduction, equivalence, and template template matching? And is it certain that we can't eat our cake and have it too? Obviously, I don't have the burden of writing a C++ compiler, but if we're going to add a feature, let's go for the gold. It's not like we get a second chance very often. Dave _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost