On 07/26/12 11:21, Larry Evans wrote:
On 07/26/12 09:57, Steven Watanabe wrote:
AMDG
On 07/26/2012 07:40 AM, Larry Evans wrote:
On 07/26/12 09:02, Steven Watanabe wrote:
On 07/26/2012 05:29 AM, Larry Evans wrote:
The concept doesn't contain anything that matches an argument of type value<_a>.
Then why isn't a similar compile error produced when b_any is constructed?
This calls a different constructor which has different requirements. Have you read the reference for any? I tried to cover the constructors thoroughly.
My mistake. I didn't notice:
http://steven_watanabe.users.sourceforge.net/type_erasure/libs/type_erasure/...
had:
Concept must contain a matching instance of constructible.
However, in my defense, I couldn't see any reason why, if:
any<Concept,_a> a_any
can be created with static_map<Concept>, it couldn't be created with a binding<Concept>; thus, I guess I just glossed over the any.html#id2445089-bb doc.
BTW what *is* the reason for the restriction on the Concept in the binding<Concept> CTOR. It's obviously not needed for creating an instance of AnyA with a value<_a>::type even when ConceptAB does not "contain a matching instance of constructible".
[snip] If detail/construct.hpp is changed as in the attached, then the compile problem in the attached goes away. Is there any reason why construct.hpp shouldn't be changed as shown in the attached? -regards, Larry