Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I agree. You'd have to be willing to use #ifdefs, though.
No reply to that? >> Just when I thought we were getting somewhere! > > My language was (again) choosen bad, sorry. I think we *are* getting > somewhere. :) Whew! >>> 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. No answer for that? > 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. Unless it has more #include dependencies than it needs for a conforming compiler, or instantiates a lot more templates than it needs to for a conforming compiler and thus compiles slower, or... is just damn hard to understand. > 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?). That's me. I think the problem is that otherwise is_convertible gets instantiated on the type, and at the time the comment was written we couldn't instantiate is_convertible on noncopyable types because it required an accessible copy ctor. I think we have a new version of is_convertible which doesn't require that, so the test may be obsolete. >> 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. As far as this library is concerned, John is the maintainer and the final authority. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost