-----Original Message----- From: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-users- bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Joel Falcou Sent: 08 April 2009 16:24 To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [Boost-users] different member function signatures based on class template arguments
Hicham Mouline a écrit :
I tried something along these lines:
but it failed to compile...
Shouldn't the enable_if metafct remove the invalid functions from the overload set?
Regards,
It probably failed because you use typename inside the enable_if condition. Make a meta-function that do your test and invoke it inside enable_if Here is an alternative working function that doesn't use enable_if : http://codepad.org/KZ4OTKxY
Great, this works very well.... Thank you, I can't help thinking this is a king of common pattern perhaps used inside boost itself many times, and that there is some helper "something" for this already? Because, basically I need 1 S_impl for each extra additional argument. But I suppose I can generate them with BOOST_PP Rds,