11 Jul
2006
11 Jul
'06
3:44 p.m.
"Matt Calabrese" <rivorus@gmail.com> writes:
On 7/10/06, Peter Dimov <pdimov@mmltd.net> wrote:
Instantiating the definition of result_of<Type> causes the instantiation of the declarations of its members, so this would imply that when its nested type member is ill-formed, the definition of result_of<> cannot be instantiated.
Yes, that's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is should I have a nested type at all in the case of ambiguity? This would make accessing result_of< Type >::type ill-formed, however, it keeps result_of< Type > instantiable.
AFAIK the only way to accomplish that is with a specialization of result_of that has no nested ::type. Am I missing something? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com