David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> and the stuff that depends on it. If I would have known that before, >> I think it would have been much easier for me to accept that >> is_class's workaround is not something broken in any way, it's just >> slower, depends on more parts and is hard to understand. > > I really don't see how my comment could have led you to believe that > is_class was broken. > >> But I was under the impression that is_class's workaround must be >> broken in some way - although I couldn't see it. (Yes, I shouldn't >> have claimed what is broken from just reading code - I should have >> at least tried it out). I think I should not assume such things in >> the future but ask instead... > > I guess so, or think harder about the comments you /do/ read.
Sorry, all of this sounds a lot too judgemental or something. Please accept my apologies. I guess I'm just confused about how my comment led you astray. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
