Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> writes:
On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:40:52 -0400, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
So, should I just remove it?
Well, not because it isn't implementable.
Sorry, I can't parse that. Should I remove it or not? Is it implementable? Maybe your code below answers those questions...
Admittedly, it isn't the most useful thing in the world either, so I don't have a strong opinion about its inclusion ;)
Looking back at that thread, I'm surprised I included it in this header because I don't think I ever really understood what you were saying.
I don't think there's an alternative to using the comma operator that will work both when dst_type is a dependent type in a template and when it is not dependent, because of differences in the need for "typename".
Good point. Then we could attack the expression part of static_cast. What about using the conditional operator? I don't know how that interacts with broken compilers, though. If you like it, I could provide the tests.
I like it. Maybe it's time to document this stuff, too ? ;-) -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com