Eric Lemings wrote:
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com] 
>> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:14 PM
>> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: type_traits progress
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Not if it defined its own `type'.
> 
> 	template <class T, T v>
> 	struct integral_constant: __rw_integral_constant<T, v>
> 	{
> 	  typedef integral_constant<T, v> type;
> 	};

Good point! This would effectively break the problematic dependency,
wouldn't it, Travis?

Martin