On 10/04/13 13:40, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
Le 09/04/13 07:50, Nathan Crookston a écrit :
Jeff Hellrung suggested[1] a fallback to decltype *only* for compilers which had nonconforming decltype operators. Thus the only behavioral change would be that some code which before would produce an error would now compile and run correctly.
Hi,
how a Boost library as Boost.Thread could use the new boost::result_of? Should it provide different implementations depending on whether BOOST_RESULT_OF_USE_DECLTYPE, BOOST_RESULT_OF_USE_TR1, or BOOST_RESULT_OF_USE_TR1_WITH_DECLTYPE_FALLBACK are defined?
I don't see any reason to not always fallback to decltype as long as decltype is available, even if incomplete/abstract types are not well supported. It would be in a case where the code would fail to compile without the fallback anyway.