Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-07 05:44:24

Doug Gregor <dgregor_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Jul 6, 2004, at 11:02 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> Howard Hinnant <hinnant_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>> As I recall, call_traits was intended to work around the
>>>> "reference to
>>>> reference" problem for both parameters and return types. This
>>>> problem
>>>> has since been solved by cwg #106 (
>>>> ).
>>> Or by boost::add_reference ;-)
>> Out of interest, when did call_traits came into existence?
>> Was it prior to type_traits? When was it reviewed? It seems
>> that we are re-reviewing call_traits again?
> Sorry, it's my fault. I sometimes look at Boost and see these little
> libraries and wonder if they really belong at the same level as the
> Python lib, or Spirit, or the Graph lib, etc. Call traits seems like a
> trivial application of type traits, but hasn't been maintained with
> the same vigor.

That very trivialness is one of the things that makes the docs hard
for me to understand. add_reference<add_const<T>::type>::type is
really easy to grasp once you know the type traits library a little
bit, but the amount of verbiage required to explain call_traits (not
even very well) hardly justifies its functionality.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at