David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jaakko Jarvi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I've noticed that call_traits doesn't support function references. >> I'm not sure whether it makes sense to store function references in >> optionals, though, but in any case. >> >> Something like this fails: >> >> typedef void (&afuncref)(int); >> typedef call_traits<afunc>::reference t; >> >> The problem is that the call_traits templates have other typedefs in >> the same class, e.g. const_reference, which gets instantiated as >> well, and it adds the const qualifier to a function type. > > Just another reason not to write degenerate "traits BLOB" > metafunctions. call_traits, if it's useful for anything (which I > sometimes wonder about because I have a hard time figuring out what it > does), should be rewritten as separate individual metafunctions.
FWIW, I find it a useful utility. However, I agree that it should be broken down into individual pieces. -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
