> I don't doubt that there is a use for the current implementation. What I'm > saying is that calling it "value_type" is wrong because that term is used > already in standard C++, and with a different meaning. > call_traits::value_type should be like iterator_traits::value_type -- a > non-const, non-reference that can be used to store temporary variables in > algorithms and whatnot. I suspect that this is the more common usage > scenario (<-- blind asseriton), and it is the behavior people would expect.
It depends, compressed_pair relies on the current behaviour: is you create compressed_pair<int&, int&> then you would want it to store references wouldn't you? Using call_traits<remove_reference<T>::type>value_type is not so hard IMO. John _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
