«

On Mar 16, 7:20 pm, Scott Meyers <NeverR...@aristeia.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/2011 9:47 AM, Noah Roberts wrote:
>
> > You can do what you're trying to do with a dispatching pattern:
>
> Simple testing suggests I can achieve the same end with less work and
> using an arguably clearer approach via enable_if. Overloading my
> forwarding template as follows works for me with VC10 and gcc 4.5 (on
> simple tests):
>
> template<typename T>
> typename std::enable_if<
> !std::is_pointer<
> typename std::remove_reference<T>::type
> >::value
> >::type
> fwd(T&& param)
> {
> std::cout << "General forwarding template => ";
> f(std::forward<T>(param));
>
> }
>
> template<typename T>
> typename std::enable_if<
> std::is_pointer<
> typename std::remove_reference<T>::type
> >::value
> >::type
> fwd(T&& param)
> {
> std::cout << "Pointer forwarding template => ";
> f(std::forward<T>(param));
>
> }
>
> Am I overlooking a drawback to this technique?
>

I think this is what others meant too, but in my words: the resolution
feature of c++ (both in functions and template class specializations)
applies a very useful partial order on the specializations (per type
hierarchies and the specializations of the template's parameters).
This scheme only works for exact partitions (equivalence relation
rather than a partial order). This is why in my other post I was
trying to "abuse" the template class specialization feature in order
to achieve a workaround.

itaj