[type_traits] ice_or / ice_and not documented but recommended in coding guidelines
Hi, I have a concern about the usage of boost::type_traits::ice_or and boost::type_traits::ice_and. I've seen it used in many places and it's even recommented in Coding Guidelines for Integral Constant Expressions [1]. The question is: why isn't it documented? Is there any reason for it? Is there any "public" (documented) equivalent? WBR, Adam Romanek [1] - http://www.boost.org/development/int_const_guidelines.html
2013/10/10 Adam Romanek
Hi,
I have a concern about the usage of boost::type_traits::ice_or and boost::type_traits::ice_and. I've seen it used in many places and it's even recommented in Coding Guidelines for Integral Constant Expressions [1].
The question is: why isn't it documented? Is there any reason for it? Is there any "public" (documented) equivalent?
WBR, Adam Romanek
[1] - http://www.boost.org/**development/int_const_**guidelines.htmlhttp://www.boost.org/development/int_const_guidelines.html
Hi, I use Boost.Mpl for this. Please try boost::mpl::and, etc. I'm curious about those boost::type_traits::ice_* things too, though. Regards, Kris
I use Boost.Mpl for this. Please try boost::mpl::and, etc.
I'm curious about those boost::type_traits::ice_* things too, though.
They're antiquated now, as I believe all current compilers don't require such nastiness. Same is true of the mpl equivalents, which were a later approach to the same problem. Currently if I need to combine integral-constant-expressions I do so in the "natural" way with || && etc: it reads much better that way IMO. John.
participants (3)
-
Adam Romanek -
John Maddock -
Krzysztof Czainski