Re: type traits, reflection, and whatnot

[Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>]

On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 02:21:37PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>   The GCC implementation of is_function will cause value to be true
>   when T is a static member function, as well as the usual case of
>   nonmemeber functions. Including static member functions may not have
>   been the intent of the proposal.  
> 
> 
> My understanding is that traits should be kept simple and straight.
> static member functions are class-scope and not namespace-scoped
> entities... so what preceisely is menat by function should be spelled
> out clearly, not just mirroring an implementation detail.

I fully agree.  Once the work gets a little further along, I'd planned to
contact the author of the proposal and request clarification on this point
("did you intend for is_member to be be true for static member functions?")

Also, I want to ask you (or the author, or somebody) whether the proposal
has undergone any further modification since its initial publication.
The document I'm working from is almost one year old now.


Phil

-- 
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
                                                 - Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002