Dave Abrahams wrote: > > 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.
OK, it's not just the MACROs. My question is: Looking at the current implementation of is_class (the work-around version), how are pointers not detected as classes? It seems to be some magic I'm missing, the code is not doing what it seems to express. And I had this feeling lots of time when looking at boost code. 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
