From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-26 18:30:32
I always wondered why we need to struggle that much to dig the information
from a compiler in writing generic components, while it should be very easy
for the compiler to provide direct access to this information. And BTW it
could give much more then we could achieve now with template tricks.
Is there formal proposition to the core group to add this kind of
facility to language? So that I could write something like:
T.has_default_constructor or T.has_field["member"]
"Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> ???????/???????? ? ???????? ?????????:
> At 07:40 AM 10/26/02, John Maddock wrote:
> >On a related issue what are we going to do with is_POD.hpp ? Changes the
> >name or not? Personally I vote for yes.
> So do I.
> By the way, several compiler writers say they are implementing support for
> type traits as they near standardization. One compiler writer said he was
> doing it by adding built-in functions with leading underscores (I guess
> like "__is_pod(...)").
> There seems to be some sentiment for standardizing the set of functions
> their names so that standard library implementations are portable. This
> seems like a good idea to me.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk