[boost] Re: call_traits/type_traits

From: scleary_at_[hidden]
Date: 1999-12-13 08:40:56

> >If the fundamentals are truely "fundamental", then it should be possible
to
> >synthesise almost any call_traits interface in terms of the basic
> >type-traits classes.  Like you I need something, although I'm tried down
to
> >one interface (yet), would it be useful to put together all the ideas
> >proposed so far, into one sample implementation?  I'll have some time
next
> >week and should be able to get this done - but I don't want to step on
> >anyones toes here (Steve, Howard?).
>
> Don't worry about my toes!  This group is about collaboration.  Go for it!
>

Yeah, go right ahead!  Like Howard said, this is a group effort.

        -Steve

P.S. Howard - I like the compressed_pair name -- that's what empty_member
has been evolving towards.  Did you specialize call_traits/fundamentals for
every standard builtin type?  I've been trying to get a specialization
working that would allow us to determine if a type is empty or not, but
haven't gotten anything to work. . .