John Maddock wrote:
If the only issue is abstract types, can't we simply filter out abstract types before invoking numeric_limits? Note that on compilers that don't support is_abstract fully the class defaults to the same behaviour as is_polymorphic, and while that may then filter out some classes that shouldn't be on broken compilers, it's a quite reasonable compromise.
That's what I did except that I never use is_polymorphic. Instead, I rely on numeric_limits not complaining about abstract type. We'll see how it goes when automated regression tests turn their attention to HEAD and particularly to ./libs/conversion/test/lexical_cast_abstract_test.cpp. Colored diff: http://tinyurl.com/2rwg8r The reason I asked this question was a possibility of similar failures. For example, abstract class could be replaced with noncopyable class. But all compilers I tried don't complain about noncopyable classes in numeric_limits. Though, I don't know what is a difference between these two kind of classes. Anyway, I added ./libs/conversion/test/lexical_cast_noncopyable_test.cpp. -- Alexander Nasonov http://nasonov.blogspot.com Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment. -- Jim Horning -- This quote is generated by: /usr/pkg/bin/curl -L http://tinyurl.com/veusy \ | sed -e 's/^document\.write(.//' -e 's/.);$/ --/' \ -e 's/<[^>]*>//g' -e 's/^More quotes from //' \ | fmt | tee ~/.signature-quote