Boost logo

Boost :

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-14 19:17:19

On Friday, February 14, 2003, at 06:33 PM, Daniel Frey wrote:

> A last general question: It seems to me that the boost type-traits are
> a
> mixture of two very different concepts: One concept is that of a
> classic
> "utility library". This means, that it provides things I can use when I
> like, but they don't affect my code in general. The other concept is
> that
> of a "framework". In order to use is_union, has_* and some other
> functions, I have to flag my classes, that means I have to write my
> code
> in a "boost-friendly" way in order to make it work. I think that it
> might
> be worth to make a very clear distinction between these two parts.
> Comments?

In my opinion, the intent from day one was to view the type traits lib
as a utility library, and not a framework. The fact that we couldn't
make is_union work was viewed as a failure in the implementation that
would probably need compiler support to make it work right. Having you
specialize your class for is_union was viewed as a workaround for the
failing of the implementation, not as a well designed interface.

I agree with you that this is an important distinction to make. As
proposed to the standards committee, the interface needs to be very


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