31 Jan
2004
31 Jan
'04
5:10 p.m.
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:12:58 -0700, "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> wrote:
Well, I can't really argue with that. But it seemes that a conforming implementation would be better than a non-conforming one.
Oh yes, I didn't imply that a non-conforming implementation is more lines or more useful :) Just that this is really a small facility; I like it, but more because I'm a C++ fan than because of its actual applications (we must admit that sometimes :)) That said, I would like to see it into boost, but only in its own header, without odd medleys with, say, container_traits or other extensive libraries. Genny.