Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: is_class

From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-16 07:27:30

> 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?

No, it's just that the version you posted only seemed to work with gcc - so
it makes for a more tangled is_class implementation.

> 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,

That's a documentation bug, fixed in cvs - thanks.

> is_member_function_pointer
> is not a secondary type category

Which I have already said is a bug, but we need time to do a fix justice.

John Maddock
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm