From: John Maddock (John_Maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-22 05:51:13
>Of course one can get where you need to go with either design. So this
>is purely a stylistic argument, not one of functionality. I personally
>feel that the interface is simpler and easier to remember with fewer
>non-combination names that can be combined with && (or || etc.) as needed.
No I don't like combination names either, nor am I sure that we need the
is_standard_xxx and is_extension_xxx templates.
>These correspond to the text in section 3.9 of the standard. In my
>opinion, any type that one can generate, you should be able to throw at
>these ten structs and have it test positive for one and only one test.
>Admittedly, is_enum and and is_union will not work without either
>compiler help, or extra attention from client code.
That is true now, but excluding cv-qualifiers (BTW I have a version of
is_enum that actually works without direct compiler support, unfortunately
my favoured compiler won't take it (Borland C++ that is).
I guess I'm beginning to lean toward ignoring cv-qualifiers all round, I
just hope that it doesn't break too much :-(
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk