Boost Users :
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.
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.
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:
> The original discussion (or some of it anyway) can be found here:
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net