[boost] Re: intrusive tagging allows omision of unneeded headers
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Dirk Gerrits" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 6:15 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: intrusive tagging allows omision of unneeded headers
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
[snip]
class X
{
public:
class tag {};
typedef tag X_tag;
^
};
class bar
{
public:
class tag {};
typedef tag bar_tag;
^^^
};
Why these typedefs? Why would one write X::X_tag instead of X::tag for
example?
how can we specifiy that we want to specialize for a particular class
otherwise? Only by establising a convetion
that all (involved) classes have a unique typedef can we destinguish the
classes. For example
template< typename C >
void foo_impl( const C& c, typename C::bar_tag )
{
cout << "bar specialised version" << endl;
}
will only be a candidate when C actually has a typedef bar_tag. due to
SFINAE the instantiation is allowed
to fail for classes that does not have a bar_tag typdef. And because the
above foo_impl is more specialized
than
template< typename C, typename Tag >
void foo_impl( const C& c, Tag t )
{
cout << "default version" << endl;
}
the first foo_impl will be chosen as a better match.
Ahh, I guess I didn't fully understand everything that was going on.
This makes sense. Thanks!
Dirk Gerrits
___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: intrusive tagging allows omision of unneeded headers
- Original Message -
From: "Dirk Gerrits" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 6:15 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: intrusive tagging allows omision of unneeded headers
> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> [snip]
> > class X
> > {
> > public:
> > class tag {};
> > typedef tag X_tag;
>^
> > };
> >
> > class bar
> > {
> > public:
> > class tag {};
> > typedef tag bar_tag;
>^^^
> > };
>
> Why these typedefs? Why would one write X::X_tag instead of X::tag for
> example?
how can we specifiy that we want to specialize for a particular class
otherwise? Only by establising a convetion
that all (involved) classes have a unique typedef can we destinguish the
classes. For example
template< typename C >
void foo_impl( const C& c, typename C::bar_tag )
{
cout << "bar specialised version" << endl;
}
will only be a candidate when C actually has a typedef bar_tag. due to
SFINAE the instantiation is allowed
to fail for classes that does not have a bar_tag typdef. And because the
above foo_impl is more specialized
than
template< typename C, typename Tag >
void foo_impl( const C& c, Tag t )
{
cout << "default version" << endl;
}
the first foo_impl will be chosen as a better match.
regards
Thorsten
___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: intrusive tagging allows omision of unneeded headers
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
[snip]
class X
{
public:
class tag {};
typedef tag X_tag;
^
};
class bar
{
public:
class tag {};
typedef tag bar_tag;
^^^
};
Why these typedefs? Why would one write X::X_tag instead of X::tag for
example?
Dirk Gerrits
___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
