From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-30 05:49:13
> John, now that you're at is_abstract, I wonder whether you could
> consider adding some workaround in is_abstract.hpp making
> boost::is_abstract return unconditionally false for those compilers
> known not to work for it.
> You can read about the origin of this request at:
> In a nutshell, Boost.Serialization does some (ODR-nonconformant)
> redefinition of boost::is_abstract the way I'm suggesting. These
> precautions are necessary because, on those compilers not
> supporting the is_abstract implementation, the construct can crash
> instead of returning false, and this makes it impossible to use
> the facility without carefully taking care of the compiler.
Uh, I hadn't realised that that was the case. However, here's the question:
is it always true that returning false is always safe? If the user's code
uses is_abstract to determine whether an actual instance of a class can
exist, then won't it do the wrong thing? I can (just about) understand
is_polymorphic having a safe default, but is that true of is_abstract?
I suppose what I'm saying is that the users idea of what constitutes a safe
default may vary from use case to use case.
We should define an appropriate macro though, whatever else is decided.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk