Doug Gregor <dgregor@cs.indiana.edu> writes:
On Jul 6, 2004, at 11:02 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
Howard Hinnant <hinnant@twcny.rr.com> writes:
As I recall, call_traits was intended to work around the "reference to reference" problem for both parameters and return types. This problem has since been solved by cwg #106 ( http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#106 ). Or by boost::add_reference ;-)
Out of interest, when did call_traits came into existence? Was it prior to type_traits? When was it reviewed? It seems that we are re-reviewing call_traits again?
Sorry, it's my fault. I sometimes look at Boost and see these little libraries and wonder if they really belong at the same level as the Python lib, or Spirit, or the Graph lib, etc. Call traits seems like a trivial application of type traits, but hasn't been maintained with the same vigor.
That very trivialness is one of the things that makes the docs hard for me to understand. add_reference<add_const<T>::type>::type is really easy to grasp once you know the type traits library a little bit, but the amount of verbiage required to explain call_traits (not even very well) hardly justifies its functionality. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com