23 Aug
2007
23 Aug
'07
7:51 a.m.
Steven Watanabe <steven <at> providere-consulting.com> writes:
Alexander Nasonov <alnsn <at> yandex.ru> writes:
Actually, this contruct has a limitation too. In some cases, typename is required: ...
Can't you use the same mechanism that you use to avoid typename for the plain typeof?
Sure, thanks for the hint. -- Alexander