From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-17 17:01:24
Daniel Frey wrote:
> > Still looks broken over here:
> > http://cci.lbl.gov/boost/results/1047901021/dailylog_win32_vc60
> I think it's OK to revert the patch to get 1.30.0 out,
Which patch? John said the changes that caused the disturbance were
never intended to be checked in.
> but for the
> future, I think we should keep in mind that it's actually is_function
> that is broken and needs to be fixed AFAICS.
It's not "broken", it doesn't work for reference types on compilers
without partial template specialization because at the time it wasn't
clear how to make it work. If you have an implementation in mind that
would perform better, please post it.
> The patch to is_class would work if is_function could be called with
> a reference, so I think it's worth to consider fixing is_function. As
> John is the expert, I think he can decide whether it's better to wait
> for the SourceForge-folks to fix he lock-problem or if it's easy
> enought (and thus faster) to fix is_function...
If it was easy enough it would be fixed long before the release. In any
case, I would be strongly opposite to sticking in a new implementation
just now. It's bad enough "the patch" got us delayed for more than a
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk