Boost logo

Boost :

From: Daniel Frey (d.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-15 21:12:13


On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 01:14:17 +0100, David Abrahams wrote:

> Daniel Frey <d.frey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> I won't try to fix any of these anymore. I neither understand the
>> documentation nor the implementation of boost's type-traits. I tried to
>> make the code better but AFAICS there is no interest in improvment.
>
> Does anyone understand what improvement you're trying to make?

I have the impression that the type-traits can and should be improved. I
don't have a complete solution for everything at once and I prefer
evolution over revolution. Thus I tried to start by suggesting a new
is_class implementation. I was disappointed to see only bashing on details
instead of a discussion of the "big picture".

The basic point was (IMHO) never answered. I tried to clean up the
implementation by providing a closed implementation of is_class for more
compilers. This should decrease the coupling of all the different parts. I
think that this is a better design than the current one. The example I
gave which I thought might show the local problem was wrong. My fault,
granted. But does it speak against cleaning up the code?

As far as I learned right now, boost is not meant to provide a clean
implementation, instead, it provides a good documentation and an
implementation that "just works". But even the documentation confused me
several times. is_scalar doesn't mention enum, is_member_function_pointer
is not a secondary type category, the mixture of utility functions and a
framework and primary type categories are implemented using secondary
type categories. Even if it works, it is IMHO still bad code. My only
chance to understand type-traits was to create my own implementation from
scratch. But maybe it's just me...

Regards, Daniel


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk