From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-27 16:37:26
Eric Friedman <ebf_at_[hidden]> writes:
> It seems to me the standard form of such a specialization would look
> as follows:
>
> // ...at file scope...
> namespace boost {
>
> template <>
> struct has_nothrow_copy< myUDT >
> : mpl::true_
> {
> };
>
> }
>
> The problem I see here is this approach (needlessly) forces MPL upon
> the user.
It's not needless. You're going to force *something* upon the user.
Why not boost/mpl/bool.hpp?
> 1) Provide a typedef of boost::mpl::true_ named boost::true_, or
> perhaps boost::tt_true to keep it Type Traits-specific. (I suppose
> we could do the same for false_.)
What problem is this solving? Just that they don't have to write the
letters "mpl"?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com