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
>>>> has since been solved by cwg #106 (
>>>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#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 http://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