Eric Lemings wrote:
>
>
>> Original Message
>> From: Travis Vitek [mailto:Travis.Vitek@roguewave.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 6:28 PM
>> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: type_traits progress
>>
>>
>>
>> Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> Travis Vitek wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Right. That could be another wrinkle. Our traits won't
>>>>> work with generic code that takes integral_constant<T, V>
>>>>> by reference.
>>>> I don't really see the motivation, but it is obvious that
>>>> the committee thought it was important for the standard
>>>> traits to do so, so we should probably follow suit in our
>>>> internal implementation.
>> Can you think of a reason why this 'feature' would be important?
>>
>>>> If we did decide to do this then we would probably want
>> our own write
>>>> __rw_integral_constant and use that internally to avoid namespace
>>>> pollution? Then I'd assume we'd want something like the following
>>>> example for is_const...
>>> Yes, I think this is close to what we want. The only thing that bugs
>>> me about it is...
>>>
>>>> template <class T, T v>
>>>> struct __rw_integral_constant
>>>> {
>>>> static const T value = v;
>>>> typedef T value_type;
>>>> typedef integral_constant<T,v> type;
>>> ...this backward dependency on integral_constant, but I don't see how
>>> to break it without template typedefs. I don't think there's
>> a compiler
>>> out there that supports them yet.
>> Actually, this was originally a typo on my part, but I do see
>> where this
>> is going. I haven't read about template typedefs, but it seems that
>> there would be a serious problem caused by the cyclic dependency.
>
> Yeah it looks like a typo to me too. Should it be:
>
> typedef __rw_integral_constant<T,v> type;
>
> In all cases I've seen, `type' refers to type of self for identity
> properties. This typedef would not hold up the identity property.
IIUC, for every specialization X of integral_constant, this
must hold:
is_same<X, typename X::type>::value == true
With integral_constant derived from __rw_integral_constant
the condition would fail.
Martin
