> The basic point was (IMHO) never answered. I tried to clean up the > implementation by providing a closed implementation of is_class for more > compilers. This should decrease the coupling of all the different parts. I > think that this is a better design than the current one. The example I > gave which I thought might show the local problem was wrong. My fault, > granted. But does it speak against cleaning up the code?
No, it's just that the version you posted only seemed to work with gcc - so it makes for a more tangled is_class implementation. > As far as I learned right now, boost is not meant to provide a clean > implementation, instead, it provides a good documentation and an > implementation that "just works". But even the documentation confused me > several times. is_scalar doesn't mention enum, That's a documentation bug, fixed in cvs - thanks. > is_member_function_pointer > is not a secondary type category Which I have already said is a bug, but we need time to do a fix justice. John Maddock http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
