Fernando Cacciola wrote: > I was suspicious of next/prior in integral_c<> from the beggining... > That's why I asked what was the intended role of integral_c<>, > and why does it feature next/prior.
It has 'next'/'prior' members because it's the easiest/most efficient way to implement 'next/prior< integral_c<T,n> >::type' functionality on compilers that don't support partial template specialization. Of course, on a conforming compiler, they don't have to be there. > If our interpretation is correct, next/prior would render the program > ill-formed in some usages of integral_c<> with enums, so, if it is > intended to represent 'integral constant expressions' and not just > 'integral values' I think it should have next/prior removed. That's what I'll do, for the conforming platforms. Thanks for pursuing the issue, Aleksey _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
