From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-26 15:12:40
David Abrahams wrote:
> What is the advantage to that over
>
> make_list
> < base_hook<my_base_hook>
> , constant_time_size<false>
> >::type l;
Just that programmers might found it more familiar, like an STL
container, but I must say that your approach gives me much more
guarantee of a single type, something that is difficult to achieve with:
set<T, set_options<...>::type >;
because I can't define the same options structure as:
set<T, set_options<pred<std::less<T> >, ...>::type >;
... because I have no access to the T type of the set from set_options
(I could pass it again, but that would be verbose. Whereas if I define:
make_set<T, pred<std::less<T>>, ...>::type l;
I have all the needed data to produce a single type. Although it's a bit
different from standard container definitions, your suggestion might be
the right thing to do to achieve both single type and less typing. So I
guess that I can offer both Tobias' approach:
set<T, pred<std::greater<T>, >
and your approach for people that want to make sure that the same types
are being created when specifying the same options.
Thanks,
Ion