David Abrahams wrote: > > Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:58:42 +0100, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote: > > > >> Daniel Frey wrote: > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> Anyway, I would understand your frustration if you've proposed a drop-in > >> replacement for the current 'is_class' implementation that passes all > >> the current tests and is better, in at least one way, than what we have > >> now - and it was ignored. But that's not what happened, is it? If you > > > > I can't provide a drop-in replacement. I don't have all the compilers > > needed. > > <snip> > > > My "vision" is to do it step-by-step and with the help from others. I > > neither have the time nor the amount of compilers needed to do everything > > on my own and in one big step. Or are you suggesting that boost can only > > be improved by people that have access to all compilers that boost > > supports? Than I guess you rule out most of the boosters immediately. > > I think this is a specious argument. It's easy enough to avoid > breaking an implementation by using #ifdefs to arrange that your > changes only affect a range of compilers you've tested it against.
But I think that #ifdefs should only be the very last option. It is part of the current problems as we already have too much #ifdefs which are confusing. I think that the use of BOOST_WORKAROUND will improve the situation, but I prefer to remove #ifdefs completely. See also the discussion about a "general coding guideline" to "always provide a name for template parameters". Here, the maintainer already did the right thing when he received the patch. I think we should aim for removing as many #ifdefs as possible. Maybe we can't do that in case of the type-traits, but I would like to try it first before giving up and creating yet another implementation that is guarded by #ifdef. (Which then might no longer be an improvement). 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