From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-08 16:51:41
On 07/08/2004 04:34 PM, David B. Held wrote:
> Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> Could you pull the definition of nested outside of sp
>>
>> template<typename P1, typename P2, typename T>
>> struct sp_nested { };
>>
>> then use a metafunction within sp:
>>
>> template<typename P1, typename P2>
>> struct sp {
>> template<typename T>
>> struct nested {
>> typedef sp_nested<P1, P2, T> type;
>> };
>> };
>> [...]
>
>
> For syntax reasons, this is an undesirable solution. Although,
> you could get pretty close by modifying it a little:
>
> template<typename P1, typename P2>
> struct sp {
> template<typename T>
> struct nested : sp_nested<P1, P2, T>
> { };
> };
>
>> [...]
>> You can then make less< sp_nested<P1, P2, T> > do pretty much
>
> > whatever you want; the question is whether you can make the
> > metafunction do whatever you needed the nested template to do.
>
> The problem is that sp_nested<> would be an implementation detail
> that I would not want to expose to the user. So I would not want
> the user to have to mention it in order to instantiate less<>.
FWIW, there's rm_nondeduced at:
which is vaguely similar to some of previous ideas. It's used at:
cycle_basis_mgr.hpp
refcycle_prox_visitor_abs.hpp
It's just another variation and hopefully you can maybe merge the
ideas and distill the best from all of them.