----- Original Message ----- From: "Daryle Walker" <darylew@hotmail.com> To: "Boost mailing list" <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [boost] Ranged type mini-library submission
On 5/16/04 11:09 AM, "christopher diggins" <cdiggins@videotron.ca> wrote: [snip]
Should those "value" types be more like "value_type" to reduce confusion on what that member is?
-- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com
The version at http://www.cdiggins.com/constrained_value.hpp is less confusing I think. Though I still use value instead of value_type, I think it is perhaps more clear from the context that value is a type as opposed to another kind of identifier. I have included the latest version below so that a copy will exist for perpetuity in the list archives. I will be posting documentation on Tuesday. #ifndef BOOST_CV_HPP #define BOOST_CV_HPP #include <boost/mpl/if.hpp> namespace boost { namespace cv { template < class constraints_policy, bool implicit_conversion_policy = true > class constrained_value { private: struct unused_struct { }; public: typedef constrained_value<constraints_policy, implicit_conversion_policy> self; typedef typename constraints_policy::value value; typedef typename mpl::if_c<implicit_conversion_policy, value, unused_struct>::type value_parameter; static constraints_policy get_constraints() { return constraints_policy(); } constrained_value() { } constrained_value(const self& x) { assign(x.get_value()); } constrained_value(value_parameter x) { assign(x); } const value get_value() const { return m; } operator value() { return m; } self& operator=(const self& x) { assign(x.get_value()); return *this; } self& operator=(value_parameter x) { assign(x); return *this; } void assign(unused_struct x) { } void assign(value_parameter x) { constraints_policy::assign(x, m); } private: value m; }; }; }; #endif // BOOST_CV_HPP Christopher Diggins http://www.cdiggins.com http://www.heron-language.com