From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-01 06:30:00
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Hi Fredrik and Dave,
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> "Fredrik Blomqvist" <fredrik_blomqvist_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > Hi!
>> > Looks good! I believe this is a highly needed complement to generic
>> > A question though: Have you considered using separated-traits instead?
>> > for example the new iterator_traits code by David Abrahams)
>> > Like so:
>> > container_value<C>::type;
>> > container_reference<C>::type;
>> > container_difference<C>::type;
>> > etc ....
>> > Philosofically I'd say this would be more in-line with the Open Closed
>> > Principle. (and IIRC David Abrahams also raised the idea of refactoring
>> > boost::call_traits into separate traits-classes a while ago.)
>> Yes, it's important to do it that way for many reasons, not least of
>> which is MPL interoperability.
> would it be a sin to have both?
What's the advantage?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk