Date: 1999-12-13 08:40:56
> >If the fundamentals are truely "fundamental", then it should be possible
> >synthesise almost any call_traits interface in terms of the basic
> >type-traits classes. Like you I need something, although I'm tried down
> >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
> >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.
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. . .
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk