Re: [boost] Re: is_class

From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-16 08:51:16

Gennaro Prota wrote:
> 
> More generally, cleaning up implementations is IMHO a "must do" at
> this point of the boost evolution. Rather than worrying about ordinary
> releases, I think we should have the library undergoing a global
> review, focused on eliminating the noise that have been accumulating
> over the years, and the existence of ad hoc solutions in each library
> for things that could be factored out in an autonomous component (e.g.
> is_signed and related stuff in numeric_traits). Also, I hate the
> enormous degree of coupling of most type_traits components: let's say
> I include boost/type_traits/is_integral, which should be the most
> simple thing in the world to implement. Well, under the appearance of
> an innocent:
> 
>   #include "boost/type_traits/detail/bool_trait_def.hpp"
> 
> I end up including:
> 
>   - template_arity_spec.hpp
>   - bool_c.hpp
> and
>   - lambda_support.hpp" (!!!)
> 
> And lambda_support, in turn, includes so much preprocessor stuff that
> I think it is more than what I would have in the whole application
> hadn't I included is_integral. So why should I use it? After all I can
> write the same in portable C++. And, by portable I mean effectively
> portable even to broken compilers (the ones I use, of course).

You managed to express what I always felt but couldn't write down. Thank
you for this fine analysis of the situation.

> What to say? Just that I expect someone to be hurt by these words and
> reply with a biting tone. Probably something along the lines of: if
> you have something better then propose it! I know, in any case, c'est
> la vie... :-)

I doubt that you hurt anyone. If someone did so, it was me. Sorry again
:)

Regards, Daniel

-- 
Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology
Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany
fon: [phone], fax: [phone]
eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de