2014/1/13 Hui Li <hui.li@icloud.com>
On Jan 12, 2014, at 12:11 PM, TONGARI J <tongari95@gmail.com> wrote:
No. I just advertised this to the community and tried to gather interest sometime ago, but didn't go for further review process.
Well, doc/test are there, but no certain plan yet, I haven't got the time to try out modular Boost myself. So, please go ahead, it'd be great if you could bring this into Boost eventually.
I see. I'll look into modular boost. Here is my proposal to extend your boost::has_call. Please let me know what you think, and I'd love to hear feedback from anyone.
1. Guard the current limited has_call implementation with #ifdef BOOST_NO_SFINAE_EXPR.
2. when sfinae-expr is supported, implement has_call based on sfinae expression (my approach or something similar). This would make has_call evaluate to false when the call is ambiguous on c++03 compilers that support sfinae-expr, which makes it closer to your original intent.
3. add has_ambiguous_call<T,R(Args...)> to both the unlimited implementation, and to the limited implementation when sfinae-expr is available. The return-type R is ignored.
4. add has_no_viable_call<T,R(Args)> to both the unlimited implementation, and to the limited when sfinae-expr is available, which always evaluate to has_no_viable_call<T,R(Args)>::value == ! has_call<T,R(Args)>::value && ! has_ambiguous_call<T,R(Args)>::value note that this means it evaluates to false when the decltype(T(Args...)) is not convertible to R, which i think is the correct behavior. also note that, for any given <T,R(Args...)>, one and only one of the three traits would evaluate to true.
5. to achieve some degree of consistency when there is no sfinae-expr support, we should have (by definition if you like), has_ambiguous_call<T,R(Args)>::value == false; // because has_call<T,R(Args)> does not compile when ambiguous has_no_viable_call<T,R(Args)>::value == ! has_call<T,R(Args)>::value
I'll explain some of my original design rationale here: 1) Name choosing: "has_call" was originally called "can_be_called", and was intended to be a separate lib than TypeTraits, but as someone pointed out, TypeTraits seems a good place, and since there are already Operator Type Traits which is called has_xxx, I just followed the convention. 2) Return Type Specifying: other Operator Type Traits let you specify the expected return type, so I followed, though with a bit different syntax. But since you also tried to provide more than has_call, I'm not sure if these apply to the others. For example, has_ambiguous_call doesn't have to follow the convention as has_call as you want to ignore the return type, maybe you can make it is_ambiguous<T(A...)>. Another thought is: maybe you don't have to make has_ambiguous_call a first-class citizen, you can provide something like has_call_fuzzy which is the exact opposite of has_no_viable_call, then the user with c++11 available can opt to use has_call_fuzzy instead of has_call so the error will generate if the call is ambiguous. About the compatibility of has_ambiguous_call -- I'm not sure if telling the false negative or generating a compile error is better in case that the compiler is incapable to tell the truth.