Eric Lemings wrote:
[...]
Okay, another proposal for inclusion though this particular utility
may be a stretch unless you understand variadic templates very well.
Can you show what the code looks like w/o __rw_and for comparison?
In general, an important design principle behind stdcxx is efficiency,
both in time and in space. And in terms of time, both compilation as
well runtime efficiency is important. In contrast to the ordinary
kind, template metaprogramming tends to increase compilation times
much more noticeably. In C++ 0x a good amount metaprogramming code
is dictated by the standard already but as a rule we need exercise
restraint when introducing templatized helper code, especially
when template recursion is involved.
Martin
PS As an aside, concepts should obviate the need for __rw_and and
similar metaprogramming tricks.
template <bool...>
struct __rw_and;
template <>
struct __rw_and<>: std::true_type {};
template <bool _Bool0, bool... _BoolN>
struct __rw_and<_Bool0, _BoolN...>
: _RWSTD_BOOL_CONST (_Bool0 && __rw_and<_BoolN...>::value)
{};
For example:
template <class... _TypesT>
struct tuple {
template <class... _TypesU>
struct __rw_is_compat
: __rw_and<std::is_convertible<_TypesT,
_TypesU>::value...> {
static_assert (sizeof... (_TypesT) == sizeof...
(_TypesU),
"tuple sizes must be equal");
};
};
Here are some quick tests that I tried out on it:
typedef tuple<char, int, long> T1;
std::cout << T1::__rw_is_compat<char, short, int>::value
<< std::endl;
std::cout << T1::__rw_is_compat<const char, const int, const
long>::value
<< std::endl;
std::cout << T1::__rw_is_compat<float, int, long>::value
<< std::endl;
std::cout << T1::__rw_is_compat<void*, int, long>::value
<< std::endl;
// fires the static assertion
//std::cout << T1::__rw_is_compat<char, short>::value
//<< std::endl;
Might just save that one for later but worth posting at least. :)
Brad.
