From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-29 04:50:47
--- In boost_at_y..., "vesa_karvonen" <vesa_karvonen_at_h...> wrote:
> --- In boost_at_y..., "vesa_karvonen" <vesa_karvonen_at_h...> wrote:
> > --- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> > > The particular thing I wanted to do seemed simple (to me): make
a
> > > list of all the built-in integral types, then generate
> > > specializations of a class template for T and T const&, where T
> > > are all members of the list. But, the docs for FOR_EACH seemed
> > > daunting, especially the recursion depth business. I'm running
> > > short of time, so I don't feel I can invest what's needed to
> > > figure all of this stuff out.
> >
> > hmm... I'll add an example on something like this. This kind of
> > functionality is rather directly supported by the library.
>
> A simple example called "is_integral.cpp" has been committed. I'll
> revise it slightly a bit later. Hopefully it gets you started.
>
> By the way, the recursion depth business can often be ignored. It
is
> only important when you call other recursive functions inside a
> recursively implemented macro.
So this should give one solution for the problem that was discussed
recently. Is there any chance for MPL analog?
Gennadiy.