Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
"Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger@neoscientists.org> wrote
Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
"Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger@neoscientists.org>
Would it be possible to allow Typeof registration of partially specialized templates?
It seems that it would be very hard to achieve any decent syntax :-(
Without thinking about the macro interface for a moment it would be technically possible, wouldn't it?
Yes, I think it would.
It's hot ;-).
Right now I am skeptical about the possibility to implement anything readable, but you are welcome to convince me otherwise ;-)
Well, after reading Dave's post I believe it might be possible to allow REG_SPEC((typename T),(std::set<T,std::less<T>,std::allocator<T> >)) (with some extra work that is -- by specializing for a function with a special return type). Here are some more straightforward versions which do not seem that hard to read to me (although they involve counting commas): REG_SPEC((typename T),2,(std::set<T,std::less<T>,std::allocator<T> >)) // ^--- comma count or REG_SPEC((typename T),3,(std::set<T,std::less<T>,std::allocator<T> >)) // ^--- tuple arity or REG_SPEC((typename T),(3,(std::set<T,std::less<T>,std::allocator<T> >)) ) // \--- pp-array used as a string -----------------/ Anything that works with your taste among it? <by the way> Our list correspondence is often hard to read because our clients seem to disagree on where to break lines. I set the line width down to 80 characters (which I figure should be acceptable -- it used to be 82 for quotes plus code) but the problem seems to persist. Is there anything that you can do about it, perhabs? </by the way> Regards, Tobias