From: Geoffrey Romer (geoff.romer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-04 17:11:46
OK, your correction works, but I don't understand why. I thought that
omitting the typename ... ::type syntax just creates a null-ary
metafunction. For example,
pair<char, plus<int_<1>, at<m_map,char> >
seems to me like it would produce not a pair consisting of a char and
an int_, but a pair consisting of a char and a null-ary metafunction
which, when applied, produces an int_. Am I missing something?