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

Reply via email to