Terje Slettebø wrote:
From: "Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger@neoscientists.org> Further I doubt there is a chance of weakening the "no-match-overload" in any other way to match worse than a function with one user defined conversion per argument.
Actually, there is...: [...]
First of all thanks for taking the time to write such an encouraging reply to my capitulation ;+). It seems to me that we are referring to different parts of this discussion: Daniel Wallin writes:
check_add<float, int*>
Would trigger a compilation error otherwise.
'has_plus_op<float,int*>' fails for the same reason (the expression inside the function call becomes invalid). I tried putting the arguments inside the expression into classes with an implicit conversion operator - but failed coming up with a "no match overload" weak enough. According to 13.1-3 I don't think there is. 'enable_if' could probably do the trick - using a modern compiler supporting it, that is. Another solution could be to hard-wire the cases which cause errors into specializations (discarding Daniel's idea of a generalized facility or using a hell of a lot preprocessor metaprogramming). Best regards, Tobias