Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 15:02:23 -0500, David Abrahams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>>My point is this: the only thing that would make argument_type
>>worthwhile, i.e. the ability to do higher-order functional
>>programming, really requires that me
On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 15:02:23 -0500, David Abrahams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>My point is this: the only thing that would make argument_type
>worthwhile, i.e. the ability to do higher-order functional
>programming, really requires that metafunctions have a consistent
>polymorphic interface
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You can do that, but IIUC it won't get you where Genny's trying to go:
>> namely that if static_log2 happens to get adjusted so its parameter is
>> an unsigned long long constant, you can detect that wit
>From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Terje Slettebø <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > As you note, if you change it to match, with unsigned long, it
> > works. I think EDG is right on this one, that there has to be an
> > exact match, except top-level cv-qualification.
>
> cv-qualificatio
--- David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can do that, but IIUC it won't get you where Genny's trying to go:
> namely that if static_log2 happens to get adjusted so its parameter is
> an unsigned long long constant, you can detect that without causing an
> error.
No. Because in the rea
Terje Slettebø <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I don't even think it works. Throwing this at Comeau online:
>>
>> template
>> struct static_log2 {};
>>
>> template
>> struct argument_type;
>>
>> template < unsigned int x > // ***
>
>From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm combining a couple of postings here.
>Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This is a simple question; suppose you have a template like this:
> >
> > template < unsigned long x >
> > struct static_log2
> > {
> > BOOST_STATIC_CONST
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 08:35:56 -0500, David Abrahams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> This of course works, but the typedef name is quite "log specific";
>>> certainly that's worse than having a generic name available at class
>>> scope:
>>>
>>>
>>>t
On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 08:35:56 -0500, David Abrahams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This of course works, but the typedef name is quite "log specific";
>> certainly that's worse than having a generic name available at class
>> scope:
>>
>>
>>template <...>
>>struct static_log2 {
>> typed
