"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:uy7u32kxw.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:upsfhdfsd.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
"Aleksey Gurtovoy" <agurtovoy@meta-comm.com> wrote in message news:m1k65tgzvi.fsf@meta-comm.com...
Andy Little writes:
In my use of integral constants, comparison for equality is the most
used operation, followed by arithmetic. I have never used the next ,prior functions. To me math ,comparison and logic operations are more likely candidates for Integral Constant Requirements.
IMO they are too heavy-weight. I understand your desire to have a concept encompassing these, but so far I don't see a compelling reason why Integral Constant should be such a concept (and I find it somewhat amusing that the title of this thread is "Integral Constant is over specified" :).
Aleksey's point here is that you are now advocating *more* specification, which contradicts your subject line.
Nope.
Yep.
Nope. I am still advocating removing the next prior requirements, hence the title of the thread.
Having next prior as requirements but not the usual operations on integers strikes me as odd.
Yes, but that's not necessarily a good criterion for determining what should be a concept.
mpl::bool_ is stated to be a model of mpl::IntegralConstant, but exercising the requirements on it results in a failure to compile. Maybe the mismatch is acceptable to you, but I don't find it satisfactory. regards Andy Little