Hi Vicente, 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'm not sure I understand what you mean. Which piece of boost thread would need to provide different implementations depending on the macro defined? I don't think users usually care about which version of result_of is actually selected -- unless deduction doesn't work, which is the case for C++11 lambdas currently. Do you have an example where the user would need to write their code differently depending on the chosen result_of implementation? I can only think of times where a user may wish to explicitly select one type. Thanks, Nate