David Abrahams wrote: > > > Who cares? The new toy is so cool! :-) Seriously, Peter is a wise man. > > Personally I would go with his suggestion about having two (or more) > > separate metafunctions, at least for the sake of generality > > I'd rather settle on one for the sake of simplicity and see if it's > enough for people. Once you provide two interfaces, you're sort of > stuck supporting them both.
I agree. And we should keep in mind that people can use "trivial" combination anyway, so we needn't offer them all with separate names/interfaces, e.g. is_base_and_derived< B, D >::value || is_void< B >::value is easy enough for users, so if they want to use "void" as a base for all classes, they can do it that way. All we need to do is to provide very good documentation. Regards, Daniel -- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: http://www.aixigo.de _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
