On Wed, 28 Jun 2017, Martin Sebor wrote: > I don't think there is an equivalent, dedicated trait in C++ to > do that either. One would have to be composed of the lower-level > ones. There also is no trait that would remove all type qualifiers > (including extensions), or even traits for querying extensions. > So (AFAIK) there is no way in C++ to do exactly what you described. > That of course doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense, just that > it's too advanced even for C++ despite its highly evolved support > for generic programming. I would suggest that although providing > something like it would be nice, its absence shouldn't stand in > the way of defining the more limited interfaces first.
Does (standard) C++ have any of restrict, _Atomic or address spaces, which are what indicate doing more than simply things for const and volatile? The more limited interfaces could, of course, be __typeof_noqual in some form. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
