[boost] Re: Boost Digest, Vol 779, Issue 4

From: François Dumont (francois.cppdevs_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-12 14:20:16

    Thanks for your advise about avoiding the call_traits library. I finaly
based my code on the type_traits library even if the param_type from
call_traits is quite a usefull type. If call_traits was deprecated putting a
param_type in type_traits sounds to me like a good idear.

    About the doc I also had the feeling of an incomplete one for
type_traits for 2 reasons. add_const<add_reference> do not lead to the same
type as add_reference<add_const>, even if I agree with this behavior, a
little note about it in the doc would be great. Second is about the compiler
support of the type_traits feature. Isn't there yet any compiler able to
give info about the compiled types? But of course it might appear as a
commercial information so it is only a suggestion.

    Just for you to know my major insterest in boost is not in its
type_traits library but in the move semantic lib. How is it going? For the
coming STLport version I have added a very simple move constructor
framework. It is not documented as I don't think that STLport is the right
place for this kind of library. As soon as the next STLport version is
released I will have a closer look on the boost move semantic lib.

Francois Dumont

>
> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 16:55:50 -0400
> From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: [boost] Re: Fw: STLport & boost
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Message-ID: <uzn6erx61.fsf_at_[hidden]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> François Dumont <francois.cppdevs_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > Hello
> >
> >     I am currently actively contributing to STLport. One of my
> > contribution is to make boost and STLport closer. I think STLport can
> > gain a lot in using some of the boost libraries and then boost will be
> > able to count on a robust std lib.
>
> This sounds really cool, BTW.
>
> >     For the moment I only use 2 libraries from boost, type_traits and
> > call_traits.
>
> Take care with call_traits.  The documentation isn't very clear about
> how it behaves in all circumstances (especially on broken compilers).
> I would be inclined to build my own individual metafunctions (rather
> than traits "blobs") for doing the kinds of thigs that call_traits
> tries to address.
>
> -- 
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> http://www.boost-consulting.com
>