Boost logo

Boost :

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
> standardization.
> 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
> first.

        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
Literate Programming tool Interscript

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at