"Andrea Torsello" <torsello@dsi.unive.it> ha scritto nel messaggio news:c5pd6u$67m$1@sea.gmane.org...
Besides it is not the only problem. I didn't just start to create my own version for pleasure. I started using your approach but the templated constructor had weird interactions with other 2 parameter constructors. I cannot remember the case off hand, but I will look for it and post it.
I looked for the problem, I had something like this: Template<class Tp> class X { ... template<class T> X(T& rhs, typename enable_if_same<X const,T>::type = 0) ; template<class T> X(X<T> const &x) ; // if T is convertible to Tp, creates a new container with the converted elements from x ... }; This last converting constructor interfered with the other templated constructor. One solution could be to something like: X(X<U> const&, typename enable_if_different<Tp,U>::type=0) ; but I had the same problem with operator = and in there the arity cannot change. I could use the convertible return type template<class U> enable_if_different<Tp, U, X<Tp>&> operator = (X<U> const &); where enable_if_different<Tp, U, X<Tp>&> converts to X<Tp>&, but then it would interfere with template type deduction when passing the result to a templated function. All minor problems, I agree, but all problems that my proposal do not exhibit.
Right, didn't realize that you could use the same trick here, good stuff!
Actually I was wrong. I checked and I did try it early on, but had problems with operator = because of the fixed arity, but I must admit that I didn't think about the convertible return type.
Anyway, using enable_if_same as a result type convertible to the required type might cause problem with template type deduction if the result is passed to a templated function, while if it is used as a second paramater with default value (as in the constructor) it changes the arity of the function, which might cause problem with functional programming (this one is probably not a real problem).
Again, changing the arity is not an option when overloading an operator.
Why don't you do some research? It's all in the sandbox.
I did, and I proposed an alternative which has some advantages and some disadvantages. If you like i,t please use it, if you don't, don't! I was looking for feedback and constructive criticism, not forcing my approach to anyone.
Sorry for being so blunt, but I haven't seen any criticism on the approach itself. You didn't appear even to take a look at it to see if there is something good about it, and just started defending your approach. I Think it was absolutely unwarranted, I am certainly not attacking your work, quite the opposite, I believe it is stuff of pure genius. Quite simply, while using your move construct I came up with something useful I thought was worth sharing. Best Regards Andrea Torsello