Have you read the Concept-Based Overloadingin Eric's blog [1]? Eric uses a dispatching schema on which the Concept definition is the tag dispatcher.
Yes, I have, however, tag dispatching doesn't work with specialization(neither does concept-based overloading, apparently). After thinking about it more, a simpler way is to just use conditional overloading instead, which would work something like this: struct advance1 { template<class Iterator, TICK_REQUIRES(is_random_access_iterator<Iterator>())> void operator()(Iterator& it, int n) const { it += n; } }; struct advance2 { template<class Iterator, TICK_REQUIRES(is_input_iterator<Iterator>())> void operator()(Iterator& it, int n) const { while (n--) ++it; } }; tick::conditional<advance1, advance2> advance = {}; The order the functions are placed matter, think of it like this pseudo- syntax: template<class Iterator> void advance(Iterator& it, int n) if (is_random_access_iterator<Iterator>()) { it += n; } else if (is_input_iterator<Iterator>()) { while (n--) ++it; } Perhaps, some macros could help to reduce the boilerplate.
This is not a good idea. The default will be checked independently of whether increment is used or not, isn't it?
It gets checked when increment gets called(at instantiation). If `is_incrementable` is false, it will cause substitution failure. Paul -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Tick-Trait-instrospection-and-concepts-li... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.