On Jan 12, 2014, at 12:11 PM, TONGARI J <tongari95@gmail.com> wrote:
No. I just advertised this to the community and tried to gather interest sometime ago, but didn't go for further review process.
Well, doc/test are there, but no certain plan yet, I haven't got the time to try out modular Boost myself. So, please go ahead, it'd be great if you could bring this into Boost eventually.
I see. I'll look into modular boost. Here is my proposal to extend your boost::has_call. Please let me know what you think, and I'd love to hear feedback from anyone. 1. Guard the current limited has_call implementation with #ifdef BOOST_NO_SFINAE_EXPR. 2. when sfinae-expr is supported, implement has_call based on sfinae expression (my approach or something similar). This would make has_call evaluate to false when the call is ambiguous on c++03 compilers that support sfinae-expr, which makes it closer to your original intent. 3. add has_ambiguous_call<T,R(Args...)> to both the unlimited implementation, and to the limited implementation when sfinae-expr is available. The return-type R is ignored. 4. add has_no_viable_call<T,R(Args)> to both the unlimited implementation, and to the limited when sfinae-expr is available, which always evaluate to has_no_viable_call<T,R(Args)>::value == ! has_call<T,R(Args)>::value && ! has_ambiguous_call<T,R(Args)>::value note that this means it evaluates to false when the decltype(T(Args...)) is not convertible to R, which i think is the correct behavior. also note that, for any given <T,R(Args...)>, one and only one of the three traits would evaluate to true. 5. to achieve some degree of consistency when there is no sfinae-expr support, we should have (by definition if you like), has_ambiguous_call<T,R(Args)>::value == false; // because has_call<T,R(Args)> does not compile when ambiguous has_no_viable_call<T,R(Args)>::value == ! has_call<T,R(Args)>::value
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost