Frédéric Bron wrote:
Could you make the same analysis with "const, volatile and references" I must answer in html. cv qualifiers work just fine. In the implementation, I have removed the reference qualifier from the analysis when I added the +=, -=, ... operators because they require lvalue as left hand side parameter (so I first remove the & if it exists and
I am not sure of the formatting of the table you received because I received it in text mode, not html, so let me retry (sorry for this). then I add it to make sure I have an lvalue). This makes and behave the same. I am checking if I can handle this better.
operator+(A) operator+(const A) operator+(volatile A) operator+(const volatile A) operator+(A&) operator+(const A&) operator+(volatile A&) operator+(const volatile A&) has_operator_unary_plus true true true true true true true true has_operator_unary_plus true true true true false true false true has_operator_unary_plus true true true true false false true true has_operator_unary_plus true true true true false false false true has_operator_unary_plus<A&> true true true true true true true true has_operator_unary_plus true true true true false true false true has_operator_unary_plus true true true true false false true true has_operator_unary_plus true true true true false false false true
Thanks, this will make cleared the documentation. What about the return type? Best, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Review-Boost-Type-Traits-Extension-by-Fre... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.