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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-16 08:59:22

Daniel Frey <d.frey_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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?

No, it does not, but someone has to have the time and energy to do the
job, and do it right.  By that I mean not just providing a patch that
reduces dependencies on a few compilers, but that one that actually
works and doesn't break anything.  If I understand this conversation
correctly, that was not done.  John invested a lot of time to
understand and test submissions and reply to commentary already.

I have certainly had my share of complaints about the type_traits
documentation, especially with respect to being able to know what the
results will be on broken compilers.  Having done it myself, I also
know how hard it is to make actual working improvements in the
type_traits implementation.  I guess what I'm saying is, "it's only a
better design if it works."  It isn't fair to say that there's no
interest in improvement before an actual possible improvement is
demonstrated.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com