From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-12 06:49:36
> I think we really ought to have something more descriptive ;-)
> > Older compilers would bypass is_abstract_class<> when macro
> > is defined.
> We should do
> mpl::and_<is_class<T>, mpl::not_<is_POD<T> > > as a
I don't understand that - how is a type that is a non-POD class the same
thing as an abstract type? Wouldn't is_polymorphic be a better
approximation? In any case I think it is up to the user of is_abstract to
decide what fallback to use if it's not supported - there's no obvious
"right" answer to what the fallback should be IMO.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk