Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-16 17:40:14

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

>> I agree. You'd have to be willing to use #ifdefs, though.

No reply to that?

>> Just when I thought we were getting somewhere!
> My language was (again) choosen bad, sorry. I think we *are* getting
> somewhere. :)


>>> 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.

No answer for that?

> 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.

Unless it has more #include dependencies than it needs for a
conforming compiler, or instantiates a lot more templates than it
needs to for a conforming compiler and thus compiles slower, or... is
just damn hard to understand.

> 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?).

That's me. I think the problem is that otherwise is_convertible gets
instantiated on the type, and at the time the comment was written we
couldn't instantiate is_convertible on noncopyable types because it
required an accessible copy ctor. I think we have a new version of
is_convertible which doesn't require that, so the test may be obsolete.

>> 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.

As far as this library is concerned, John is the maintainer and the
final authority.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at