"Arkadiy Vertleyb" <vertleyb@hotmail.com> writes:
However BOOST_TYPEOF, although does require user type registration, has an advantage of much nicer syntax. Compare:
result_of<minus_(minus_(int, _1_), _2_)>::type f = 3 - _1 - _2;
with
BOOST_AUTO(f, 3 - _1 - _2);
Yes, of course it does. You don't think the advantages of auto are lost on me, do you?
Inside my library's implementation I'm willing to buy lack of registration with a slightly uglier syntax, because asking people to register types is completely untenable for me.
It would be very nice to have lambda and bind types registered, so that
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote the
user at least have a choise.
It's utterly irrelevant to me, since there's no way I'm going to ask users to register their types just so *I* can use typeof.
I didn't realise it's for *your* code. The examples you provided didn't look to me generic enough to belong to a library. I do agree that usage of BOOST_TYPEOF in generic code should be avoided as long as there is a solution with no registration. Regards, Arkadiy