Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: [boost] Pervasive dependency upon mpl::bool_
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-01 16:40:19

We have lots of headers that depend on mpl::bool_ in order to define traits
classes as deriving from mpl::true_ or mpl::false_.

I don't think that this dependency is necessary even for MPL
interoperability. The normal way of

template<class T> struct trait
    BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT( bool, value = false );

should work just as well. I think.

As one example, there's detail/blank.hpp, which starts with

#include "boost/mpl/bool.hpp"
#include "boost/type_traits/is_empty.hpp"
#include "boost/type_traits/is_pod.hpp"
#include "boost/type_traits/is_stateless.hpp"

It doesn't really need these includes.

namespace boost {

struct blank

// type traits specializations

template <>
struct is_pod< blank >
    : mpl::true_

This can be written as

template<class T> struct is_pod;

template<> struct is_pod< blank >
    BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT( bool, value = true );

which requires no includes.

The problem is, though, that all type traits do derive from mpl::true_ or
mpl::false_, and I'm not sure if rewriting blank.hpp in the above manner is
actually correct. Should type trait specializations always derive from
mpl::true_ or mpl::false_? Will I break something if I specialize a type
trait to not derive from mpl::bool_? Or is a nested ::value enough? Who
knows. :-)

But really, if a header, whose entire purpose is to define an empty struct,
can't get by without including type traits and mpl, we've lost the
dependency game before it's even started.

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