mlimber
mlimber
I waffled a bit on this, sorry. The two alternatives are my penultimate commit: ```cpp #define AKT_MAKE_TAGGED_BOOL( Name ) \ class Name##ExplicitBoolTag { Name##ExplicitBoolTag() = delete; }; \ using Name...
Right: it's a trade-off, and totally optional. You can choose either to repeat yourself (boilerplate + tag name which is usually just `name_tag`), or you can use the slightly more...
Join or synchronize, whatever. I tried the workarounds I mentioned, and didn't have success. I tried something like this: ```cpp struct Synchronize { MAKE_MOCK0( Sync, void() ); }; struct Foo...
Ah, I see better now. How about something along these lines ([on Coliru](http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/e29687933e37ad5e)): ```cpp #include #include #include #define MAKE_MOCK1 1 #define MAKE_MOCK2 2 #define MAKE_MOCK3 3 #define MAKE_MOCK(name, ret, args)...
I think it could be done by pilfering and rebranding a small subset of Boost.Preprocessor with appropriate documentation of the borrowing. Do you think that would be ok license-wise for...
Looks good! I wonder if there wouldn't be an SFINAE/`if constexpr` way to detect the number of params and const-ness too.
Also, this seems relatively non-controversial, @manshreck.
Any love here, @manshreck?
No rush on my side. Thanks for caring. :-) The main gripe I have about the revised text is the "is" vs. "has" notion, which is what I interpreted the...
I'll take another whack at it.