On Friday, February 14, 2003, at 06:33 PM, Daniel Frey wrote:
A last general question: It seems to me that the boost type-traits are aIn my opinion, the intent from day one was to view the type traits lib as a utility library, and not a framework. The fact that we couldn't make is_union work was viewed as a failure in the implementation that would probably need compiler support to make it work right. Having you specialize your class for is_union was viewed as a workaround for the failing of the implementation, not as a well designed interface.
mixture of two very different concepts: One concept is that of a classic
"utility library". This means, that it provides things I can use when I
like, but they don't affect my code in general. The other concept is that
of a "framework". In order to use is_union, has_* and some other
functions, I have to flag my classes, that means I have to write my code
in a "boost-friendly" way in order to make it work. I think that it might
be worth to make a very clear distinction between these two parts.
Comments?
I agree with you that this is an important distinction to make. As proposed to the standards committee, the interface needs to be very clear.
-Howard
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
