On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 8:37 AM [GMT+1=CET], Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That given, a member-function-pointer should match is_class, shouldn't > it? In fact all pointers should IMHO match is_class with this > implementation. Maybe it's just me but the boost source is feeling more > and more unmaintainable given the extrem use of MACROs to workaround > each and every problem some compilers have. Am I the only one who feels > uncomfortable with it? Using MACROS to work around compiler bugs at the low level of type_traits is far preferable to littering high-level components with compiler specific workarounds. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
