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

From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-16 14:21:13

David Abrahams wrote:
> 
> Well maybe we should start over.  The way this whole thing started it
> sounded like a lot of judgemental complaining about the current state
> of the library without any willingness to bend your principles enough
> to do something that was actually practical.  Let me also point out,
> just to be clear, that handling "a great variety of compilers" is not
> enough.  Any solution we have has to work for all the currently
> supported compilers.

Let's look at the current status:

# if (defined(__MWERKS__) && __MWERKS__ >= 0x3000) || BOOST_MSVC > 1301
|| defined(BOOST_NO_COMPILER_CONFIG)
#   define BOOST_TT_HAS_CONFORMING_IS_CLASS_IMPLEMENTATION
#endif

We don't need to create an implementation that works for *all*
compilers. We could just try to find an implementation that works for
*more* compilers than today.

> > I don't see why it is unrealistic or unfair to think that some
> > boosters might be interested to work on it, though.
> 
> It isn't unfair to expect that some boosters might be interested in
> working on the problem.  It's unfair to expect that any particular
> booster will have the time and inclination to pursue a reorganization
> of working code for no gain in functionality, especially if it looks

I think that we have some fundamental disagreement about this "no gain
in functionality"-point. I don't consider it an aestetic ideal but a
real helper in the long term, although I cannot show a direct
improvement immediately. It's just what experience teached me, nothing I
can prove.

> to them like you'd be willing to sacrifice a working implementation on
> some supported platforms in order to satisfy some aesthetic ideal.

To hopefully make that point clear: I don't want to break anything and I
don't want to sacrifice the implementation or compilers or platforms,
etc. We have a "real" implementation and a workaround. If we can manage
to create a better "real" implementation which works for more compilers
today, this would IMHO be an improvement. But the discussion is becoming
more and more pointless, it seems that I have a different view about
software development than the authorities here.

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