From: Daniel Frey (d.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-16 17:23:30
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 22:52:52 +0100, David Abrahams wrote:
> Are you saying that the current implementation of is_class is broken for
> some compiler?
No. I think it was is_enum and I now have a patch for it, see my other
post. So, yes, I took the wrong approach when you want to see the
improvement is terms of fixed regressions. It's just that the current
implementation of the type-traits is damn hard to understand. Note that
the is_enum-patch also fixes the warning for is_class.
>> 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.
> I agree. You'd have to be willing to use #ifdefs, though.
>> But the discussion is becoming more and more pointless
> Just when I thought we were getting somewhere!
My language was (again) choosen bad, sorry. I think we *are* getting
>> it seems that I have a different view about software development than
>> the authorities here.
> Where is the fundamental disagreement? It seems as though you're
> willing to use #ifdefs, since that's pretty much the only way to have a
> workaround implementation, and you seem to have accepted the idea that
> one may be neccessary. Therefore, you can easily make patches which
> enable a "real" implementation for compilers you can test (or reasonably
> assume will work -- i.e. other EDG compilers with the same
> __EDG_VERSION), and other people can see if they can also use your
> implementation on other compilers; we can keep the codebase functional
> and still improve its cleanliness; everyone will be happy. I just don't
> get what we're arguing about.
I just had another thought: *If* the workaround has no drawbacks, why
don't we remove the "real" implementation? Why was it provided? Maybe this
is a fundamental point, too. There "should" be a drawback, otherwise the
workaround is already the clean one-size-fits-all code I am looking for.
The existence and some comments in the code just give me the feeling that
this is not the case. As an example, look at is_enum and the comment from
dwa (Darryl?). But my tests showed that even noncopyable classes were
correctly detected. So, is it desirable to have a conforming is_class
implementation for as many compilers as possible or don't we need it. I
don't really understand what is the current status.
> Well, let me be clear about this at least: at no point in this
> conversation was I intending to post "as an authority."
I haven't meant it in any negative way. See it in the context of Genny's
post. It's just that someone (the "authorities") have to make decisions
and I'm fine with this. Although I have CVS write access, I will not just
change stuff without the OK from someone who can give an OK.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk