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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-16 19:53:52

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> and the stuff that depends on it. If I would have known that before,
>> I think it would have been much easier for me to accept that
>> is_class's workaround is not something broken in any way, it's just
>> slower, depends on more parts and is hard to understand. 
>
> I really don't see how my comment could have led you to believe that
> is_class was broken.
>
>> But I was under the impression that is_class's workaround must be
>> broken in some way - although I couldn't see it. (Yes, I shouldn't
>> have claimed what is broken from just reading code - I should have
>> at least tried it out). I think I should not assume such things in
>> the future but ask instead...
>
> I guess so, or think harder about the comments you /do/ read.

Sorry, all of this sounds a lot too judgemental or something. Please
accept my apologies.  I guess I'm just confused about how my comment
led you astray.

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