10 Jul
2006
10 Jul
'06
5:57 p.m.
Matt Calabrese wrote:
On 7/10/06, Peter Dimov <pdimov@mmltd.net> wrote:
Do you have a specific scenario in mind?
Yes. For clarity, it is clear that result_of< Type >::type should be ill-formed with ambiguity, however, should result_of< Type > be instantiable at all when the function call would be ill-formed?
Instantiating the definition of result_of<Type> causes the instantiation of the declarations of its members, so this would imply that when its nested type member is ill-formed, the definition of result_of<> cannot be instantiated.