From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-06 07:05:23
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> I was suspicious of next/prior in integral_c<> from the beggining...
> That's why I asked what was the intended role of integral_c<>,
> and why does it feature next/prior.
It has 'next'/'prior' members because it's the easiest/most efficient
way to implement 'next/prior< integral_c<T,n> >::type' functionality
on compilers that don't support partial template specialization.
Of course, on a conforming compiler, they don't have to be there.
> If our interpretation is correct, next/prior would render the program
> ill-formed in some usages of integral_c<> with enums, so, if it is
> intended to represent 'integral constant expressions' and not just
> 'integral values' I think it should have next/prior removed.
That's what I'll do, for the conforming platforms.
Thanks for pursuing the issue,
Aleksey