[boost] Re: Canonical form for Type Traits specializations?

From: Eric Friedman (ebf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-28 01:09:15

David Abrahams wrote:
> Eric Friedman <ebf_at_[hidden]> writes:
 >
>>I believe it is confusing for a user who is seeking simply to
>>specialize a type trait to have to think about an unrelated library.
> 
> 
> It's clearly not completely unrelated.

I understand well the two are not unrelated from an implementation POV. 
I further understand the value of exposing some well-known integral 
constant wrapper type from the various type traits. But none of this 
suggests to me that type traits should be connected to MPL (except for 
MPL lambda workarounds, etc.).

Maybe a different way to understand my argument: why isn't MPL mentioned 
even *once* in the Type Traits documentation?

Maybe it's because no one has gotten around to updating the docs. But I 
believe its because the two are not and should not be related on a 
conceptual level.

Eric