From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-05 09:43:25
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 8:37 AM [GMT+1=CET],
Daniel Frey <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> 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.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com