From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-16 08:40:36
John Maddock wrote:
> > 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.
It also works for the Intel (EDG-based) compilers (v6 and v7), as Intel
kindly allows free personal home use. I never intended to write a
GCC-only implementation. Bad luck it doesn't work for Win32-compilers :(
> > 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.
Can't it be just moved to the primary-section or am I missing something
-- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk