Re: [Boost-users] [1.33.0] Release candidate #1 is available

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-05 11:43:31

Hmm - I missed that discussion.  I did get your email - but somehow it 
failed to register.  I'll look into this.

Robert Ramey.

P.S. FWIW - I would have suggested a static assert in a place where a user 
invokes a template metafunction which can't be counted on to do what its 
names suggests it does in the current environment.

RR

John Maddock wrote:
>> When I look at the new code in type_traits/is_abstract for compilers
>> which can't implement correct is_abstract, it seems it marks any
>> polymophic class as abstract.  This would conflict with the
>> serialization system which really needs to know if a class is really
>> abstract - not just polymorphic.  I would be curious as to why
>> type_traits/is_abstract makes this the default.  The serialization
>> system makes "false" the default.
>
> The announcement of the change was made last year, I'm pretty sure I
> cc'd you, but in any case it's here:
> http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/12/77173.php
>
> The original discussion (or some of it anyway) can be found here:
> http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2004/11/76883.php
>
> John.