From: John Max Skaller (skaller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-15 17:42:00
David Abrahams wrote:
> I agree that type_traits is extremely useful and should be considered for
> That said, it is only used as an /implementation detail/ of other boost
> libraries. There is no reason a vendor couldn't implement any of the boost
> library interfaces without using boost::type_traits (except that it would be
> a lot of work). From a standardization POV, I don't see how library
> implementation dependencies are relevant to which libraries are considered
I do, and I think you nailed it: implementors will want to
see HOW to implement something, not just what the interface looks
like. After all, some people will want to build a test example
of the library to try it out, and they may want to fit it into
their own library architectures.
Now, I HATE traits libraries, (template equivalent
of global data .. ) but if the type traits library is actually
used by other boost libraries, then that's a very strong argument
that its a useful component worth standardising.
Furthermore, its worth proposing becase there
might be a better way to provide the functionality with
a core language modification. So I'd have to recommend
putting it forward.
Also, while I think of it, I suggest that the proposals
go for 'tentative acceptance' by the committee. This is a committment
to examination and refinement, while not necessarily accepting the
proposal as it stands: its a warning to clients NOT to depend on
the interface as it stands, and allows the committee to fiddle
without accepting 'backwards compatibility' as any kind of
argument against doing so.
-- John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller_at_[hidden] 10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850 New generation programming language Felix http://felix.sourceforge.net Literate Programming tool Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk