"Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > So, first of all, do you agree that the mpl form is better? >> >> It's "better", but maybe not for the reasons you think ;-). [It has >> to do with metafunction/metadata polymorphism] >> > Also... It is a burden to deal with X::value in bcc5.5.1 because > you need to fully qualify X, but not for X::type, do given that many > metafunctions accept mpl's forms already, it is better if only for > this reason.
Granted. Note though: why do you think it is that many (MPL) metafunctions accept mpl's forms already? metafunction/metadata polymorphism again ;-) >> I think the fix is much easier than either of those: >> >> typedef integral_c<T, static_cast<T>(value + 1)> next; >> typedef integral_c<T, static_cast<T>(value - 1)> prior; >> > Of course! I've tried many _other_ casts (for 'value' and '1' individually), > but not this one... > > It works now! Great, I'll apply the patch to CVS. -- 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