On 7/5/2011 4:38 AM, John Maddock wrote:
OK here's my review of this library. snipped...
12) Testing BOOST_TTI_HAS_COMP_MEMBER_FUNCTION(begin)
I see that this static assertion fails:
BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT((boost::tti::has_comp_member_function_begin<std::vector<int>::const_iterator (std::vector<int>::*const)(void)>::value));
Investigating this I find out that the form that function_types generates, which is what BOOST_TTI_HAS_MEMBER_FUNCTION uses, is: std::vector<int>::const_iterator (std::vector<int>::* )() const so that: BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT((boost::tti::has_comp_member_function_begin<std::vector<int>::const_iterator (std::vector<int>::*)(void) const>::value)); does indeed work. It does seem as if putting the 'const' at the end is the correct signature whereas putting it where you originally had it suggests a const member function pointer and not a member function pointer to a const member function.
Have I done something silly? Testing const-member functions seems OK with BOOST_TTI_HAS_MEMBER_FUNCTION BTW.
All the more reason to use the mpl sequence form rather than the composite form unless there is really a need for the composite form with some sort of arcane calling convention or compiler-specific syntax. That's just my opinion of course and I am glad to supply both forms.