On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 22:52:52 +0100, David Abrahams wrote: > Are you saying that the current implementation of is_class is broken for > some compiler?
No. I think it was is_enum and I now have a patch for it, see my other post. So, yes, I took the wrong approach when you want to see the improvement is terms of fixed regressions. It's just that the current implementation of the type-traits is damn hard to understand. Note that the is_enum-patch also fixes the warning for is_class. >> To hopefully make that point clear: I don't want to break anything and >> I don't want to sacrifice the implementation or compilers or platforms, >> etc. We have a "real" implementation and a workaround. If we can manage >> to create a better "real" implementation which works for more compilers >> today, this would IMHO be an improvement. > > I agree. You'd have to be willing to use #ifdefs, though. > >> But the discussion is becoming more and more pointless > > Just when I thought we were getting somewhere! My language was (again) choosen bad, sorry. I think we *are* getting somewhere. :) >> it seems that I have a different view about software development than >> the authorities here. > > Where is the fundamental disagreement? It seems as though you're > willing to use #ifdefs, since that's pretty much the only way to have a > workaround implementation, and you seem to have accepted the idea that > one may be neccessary. Therefore, you can easily make patches which > enable a "real" implementation for compilers you can test (or reasonably > assume will work -- i.e. other EDG compilers with the same > __EDG_VERSION), and other people can see if they can also use your > implementation on other compilers; we can keep the codebase functional > and still improve its cleanliness; everyone will be happy. I just don't > get what we're arguing about. I just had another thought: *If* the workaround has no drawbacks, why don't we remove the "real" implementation? Why was it provided? Maybe this is a fundamental point, too. There "should" be a drawback, otherwise the workaround is already the clean one-size-fits-all code I am looking for. The existence and some comments in the code just give me the feeling that this is not the case. As an example, look at is_enum and the comment from dwa (Darryl?). But my tests showed that even noncopyable classes were correctly detected. So, is it desirable to have a conforming is_class implementation for as many compilers as possible or don't we need it. I don't really understand what is the current status. > Well, let me be clear about this at least: at no point in this > conversation was I intending to post "as an authority." I haven't meant it in any negative way. See it in the context of Genny's post. It's just that someone (the "authorities") have to make decisions and I'm fine with this. Although I have CVS write access, I will not just change stuff without the OK from someone who can give an OK. Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
