From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-19 05:21:08
Cromwell Enage wrote:
> --- John Maddock wrote:
>> Stjepan Rajko wrote:
>>> So far, I've been using:
>>>
>>> template<typename T>
>>> struct storable : public
>>> boost::remove_const<typename
>>> boost::remove_reference<T>::type > {};
>
> [snip]
>
>> Your code will only work for class types right? If
>> that's an acceptable limitation then it will do
>> what you want, or did you mean:
>>
>> template<typename T>
>> struct storable
>> {
>> typedef typename boost::remove_const<typename
>> boost::remove_reference<T>::type > type;
>> };
>
> I thought both class definitions would be equivalent
> from a user's perspective, e.g.:
>
> BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT((
> boost::is_same<
> storable<int const&>::type
> , int
> >::value
> ));
???? There's no nested ::type member in the first version.
> I've been using the first style (the one Stjepan
> presented) on primitive types without problems.
Don't you end up inheriting from the primitive type in that case????
Confused yours, John.