Boost logo

Boost :

From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-17 08:47:10


Richard Smith wrote:
> Tobias Schwinger wrote:
>
>
>>Now folks complain more about the tags than before. Worse
>>than that, I haven't been presented a single clearly
>>superior alternative!
>
>
> What's wrong with separate traits for these? So far as I
> can see, you only need four (plus one per platform specific
> calling convention):
>
> is_variadic<T>::value
> is_const_member_function<T>::value
> is_volatile_member_function<T>::value
> is_default_cc<T>::value
>
> These seem much more in the spirit of the existing type
> traits in Boost.
>
> By your own admission, "typical use cases will not require
> that a tag argument is ever given *by design*", so requring
> a library user to use mpl::and_ (and perhaps mpl::not_) to
> fold these in on those atypical use cases that require this
> information can't be much of a burden.

Two things:

1. How to specify the properties for type synthesis?

You proposed to strip it out, but I think that the compromising the symmetry of the library is far
to high of a price for unspecified aesthetical reasons.

2. The primary interface would be "shape shifting" based on the configuration:

  is_fastcall_cc
  is_stdcall_cc
  is_*_cc

which, is at least as ugly (not to say uglier) as tag types, IMO.

Further: none of the reviewers (except Doug Gregor, who was talking about the issue in the very specific context of merger with another library) did answer the following question:

   What's wrong with the tag types (other than personal taste) in the first place?

A "reject" vote for a matter of personal taste is pretty tough, IMO. But sadly it wouldn't surprise me much after reading some of the material from the GIL review...

Regards,

Tobias


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk