On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Bryce Lelbach <blelbach@cct.lsu.edu> wrote:
On 2011.05.13_17.55.50, Steven Watanabe wrote:
Why do you expect this to work? range_size doesn't support references at all. Ah, I didn't realize range_size doesn't support references at all. In that case, why not add those specializations, as well?
Why should a reference to an array be special?
Why should an array be special? If the metafunction is defined for a particular type, and a logical definition exists for the qualified forms of said type, then the metafunction should work for the qualified forms, IMHO.
Doesn't range_size<char const[5]> work?
It works, but char const[5] is not char const (&)[5].
Thanks Steven.
I had always understood the Boost.Range metafunctions to operate exclusively on at-most-const-qualified range types (explicitly: not references). Sounds like you're looking for a specialization of range_size et al. that looks like template< class Range > struct range_size< Range& > : range_size< Range > { }; I don't know what the downsides of including such specializations are for all the Boost.Range metafunctions. Can you present a (more) compelling argument for such specializations other than "because we can"? - Jeff