Jeff Flinn wrote:
Hi Joachim,
Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
Dear developers,
the Interval Template Library is now in a state where I think it does conform the requirements and guidelines for boost libraries fairly well.
I'm working with CodeWarrior version 9.x (yep I'm stuck with this):
That's version 9.4.
Also Ambiguous use of partial specialization Errors in is_combinable.hpp for the typedef's in:
template<class Type> struct is_interval_set_derivative<Type, typename Type::interval_type> { typedef is_interval_set_derivative<Type, typename Type::interval_type> type; BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, value = (is_interval_container<Type>::value)); };
So isn't this comparable: template<class Type> struct is_interval_set_derivative<Type, typename Type::interval_type> { typedef is_interval_set_derivative type; BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, value = (is_interval_container<Type>::value)); }; Isn't the unadorned name is_interval_set_derivative within the context of this struct definition the same as if it had the template parameters specified? Modifying is_combinable in this fashion compiles in cw9.4. I haven't checked yet with MSVC or gcc. Jeff