Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
"Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger@neoscientists.org> wrote
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> >))
Considering my previous post... we could probably make it:
REG_SPEC((typename),(std::set<P0,std::less<P0>,std::allocator<P0> >))
Where P0 stands for "the first parameter". We already use this techinique in dependent template parameters. Then (typename) is free to use for other purposes.
The above syntax is most attractive, but I think there will be a problem specializing on a type that was calculated by the means of template metaprogramming...
That's not exactly what I meant. It's possible to #define REG_SPEC(a,b) \ ... struct my_traits< a_private_return_type b > { ... } And then use "my_traits< a_private_return_type(T) >". However, we can't apply this technique globally because not all types are valid function parameter types (this is what I meant with "extra work" in the sentence below).
(with some extra work that is -- by specializing for a function with a special return type).
[... code]
Anything that works with your taste among it?
All of them are much better than using ")(" :-)
So what? IIRC my post contained a disclaimer that I was trying to communicate functionality and not designing a pretty user interface :-).
[... line breaks in conversation]
I also switched to 80 (was 50) -- let's see if it works...
Obviously not so really. As another experiment I told my client not to break lines at all (if my posts remain readable it should be a solution). Regards, Tobias