Re: [Boost-users] [mpl] newbie question

"Peter Dimov" wrote in message news:000c01c63940$5b10b6b0$6407a8c0@pdimov2...

David Abrahams wrote:

...

"Andy Little" writes:

...

"David Abrahams" writes

...

The result of the transform is only required to be "concept-identical" to the result you're looking for.

IMO that behaviour is sloppy. I see no reason why (at least)

boost::is_same < plus< int_<1> ,int_<1> >::type, int_<2> > shouldnt be true.

Patches welcome, and all that. If you can figure out how to do it without greatly complicating the library, I'm sure Aleksey would be glad to adopt your code.

I'd question this decision. Code that assumes that plus< int_<1>, int_<2>

...

::type is int_<3> is by definition more limited than code that handles any result as long as its ::value is 3.

int_<1> and int_<2> are types not concepts. What other type can *more advantageously* be returned here bearing in mind that currently I get an integral_c back? regards Andy Little