May I ask why, or in what situation? I am reminded of Item 2 of Meyers "Beware the Illusion of Container-Independent Code". . --
I posted a trivial examle of writing a generic output stream operator for all container types.. It works for all containers given that their value_type also implements the stream operator. To me it is (was) an occuring task to overload container types, since I usually want algorithms or components to work out-of-the-box with containers. If I put some requirements on type T for my algorithm A, and I can express how A should behave if T is a container, then T::value_type must fulfill the requirement and I can specialize the the algorithm for this case. Mostly I provide specializations for boost::variant and boost::fusion sequences, but STL contains a too big set of containers to specialize each and every one. Does it make any sense? Regards, Christian On 15/05/07, Hervé Brönnimann <hervebronnimann@mac.com> wrote:
On May 10, 2007, at 6:56 AM, Christian Holmquist wrote:
I've had much use of a small traits class for identifying types that matches the STL Container concept (roughly) .
May I ask why, or in what situation? I am reminded of Item 2 of Meyers "Beware the Illusion of Container-Independent Code". . -- Hervé Brönnimann CIS, Polytechnic University _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost