From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-17 00:32:26
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Friedman" <ebf_at_[hidden]>
> Other components, however, are more general purpose -- namely,
> and boost::incomplete. Since boost::empty is almost trivial, I plan to
> document and test it as part of the utility library.
> But boost::incomplete is generally quite useful (for example, in
> implementing the "pimpl" idiom), and I think Boosters may employ it often
> without boost::variant. My question then: should boost::incomplete be
> its own libs/incomplete directory and an announcement on the main html
> Any input welcome.
I think both boost::empty and boost::incomplete should go into the utility
library, because they are both of general utility and are relatively small.
But they should be mentioned on the main HTML page in any case, because they
can be useful for users.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk