Article View: comp.std.c++
Article #2125Re: Do we need a standard isPointer() function?
From: Fergus Henderson
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 18:31
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 18:31
52 lines
2605 bytes
2605 bytes
Distribution:
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Path: munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU!fjh
From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: Do we need a standard isPointer() function?
Message-ID: <9527818.9819@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Sender: news@cs.mu.OZ.AU (CS-Usenet)
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
References: <439kkn$n81@caesar.ultra.net> <9525806.29066@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <44hevp$ofa@caesar.ultra.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 08:48:30 GMT
Lines: 34
phalpern@truffle.ultranet.com (Pablo Halpern) writes:
>fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) wrote:
>
>> template <class T>
>> struct ext_type_info {
>> enum { is_pointer = false }; // assume T is not a pointer...
>> }
>
>> // define a partial specialization
>> template <class U>
>> struct ext_type_info<U *> { // ... unless it matches this
>> enum { is_pointer = true }; // partial specialization
>> }
>
>>[This is now legal C++, but I don't know of any compilers that
>>support partial specialization yet.]
>
>This does not look like partial specialization to me. Partial
>specialization, as I understand it, is where you specify implementation
>details for a template where one or more of the template paramters are
>known at compile time. The code above does not use compile-time
>parameters but uses a notation to *imply* that the "partialy
>specialized" template is for pointer parameters only. Is this really
>legal in the current WP?
Yes, it really is legal. See section 14.6 [temp.class.spec] of the
draft standard.
--
Fergus Henderson | "Australia is the richest country in the world,
fjh@cs.mu.oz.au | according to a new system of measuring wealth
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh | announced by the World Bank yesterday."
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | - Melbourne newspaper "The Age", 18 Sept 1995.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu. The moderation policy
is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9527818.9819@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!128.32.155.1!mattReferences:
<439kkn$n81@caesar.ultra.net> <9525806.29066@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <44hevp$ofa@caesar.ultra.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!128.32.155.1!matt From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Do we need a standard isPointer() function? Date: 05 Oct 1995 18:31:28 GMT Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia Approved: matt@physics2.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern) Message-ID: <9527818.9819@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> References: <439kkn$n81@caesar.ultra.net> <9525806.29066@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <44hevp$ofa@caesar.ultra.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu