"Arkadiy Vertleyb" <vertleyb@hotmail.com> writes:
Hi Tobias,
Thanks for the review.
"Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger@neoscientists.org> wrote
I don't like the '_TPL' suffix - I'ld prefer 'TEMPLATED' to be spelled out.
I don't have strong feelings about our current spelling, but I am not sure if I am crasy about BOOST_TYPEOF_TEMPLATED either. When David suggested using mpl::identity<__typeof__(x)>::type to wrap native typeof, I thought we can get rid of the xxx_TPL macros altogether (which would be a preferable solution for me), but now I realize that "typename" is used twice in the macto expansion. Which means we may also need BOOST_LVALUE_TYPEOF_TPL (or analogous).
Naw... anything of the form metafunction1< metafunction2< ... >::type >::type can be collapsed into metafunction3< ... >::type where template <class T> struct metafunction3 : metafunction1< typename metafunction2< T >::type > {}; So there should be no need for any _TPL suffixes.
I need to give this a little more thought, and I also like to hear what other people think about naming.
Well, even "TEMPLATED" is not very descriptive ;-)
We did some work with Aleksandr Nasonov to port the library to Intel 8.0, and we came pretty close -- only the exotic case "template<class T, Tn>" didn't work, and we proved to ourselves that this was because of the compiler bug. So I think Intel will be among first compilers to extend our support.
Did you submit a bug report to intel? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com