Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: remove_reference
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:43:52 -0600
Message-ID: 
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A49010A384E@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
Thread-Topic: remove_reference
Thread-Index: 
 AcjMpx96K9/egoSOQVy/P6o4i41nlgABdK4gAAEswVAAACTV4AAAkq5AAAANytAAAB7h8AAEThGgAANbX9AAAPTckAABVKyA
References: 
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A49010A3841@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A499AA89D@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A49010A3844@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A499AA8A0@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A49010A3846@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A499AA8A1@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A49010A3847@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A499AA8A3@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A49010A384C@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A499AA8A5@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
From: "Eric Lemings" <Eric.Lemings@roguewave.com>
To: "Travis Vitek" <Travis.Vitek@roguewave.com>
Cc: <dev@stdcxx.apache.org>

=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Travis Vitek=20
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:18 PM
> To: Eric Lemings
> Subject: RE: remove_reference
>=20
> =20
>=20
> >Eric Lemings=20
> >
...
> >
> >I think you sorta missed my point.  My point is that if the internal
> >type traits do not provide any real added value, why bother with
> >them?  Say you have an internal class __rw_foo and a public class
> >foo which derives from __rw_foo but is virtual identical, why have
> >__rw_foo at all?  Why not move everything in __rw_foo directly into
> >foo?
> >
>=20
> Sorry, I understood what you were getting at, I just didn't=20
> come right out and provide the answer you were looking for.=20
> Yes, we intend to use traits in the library implementation=20
> where we can take advantage of them for performance=20
> improvements. The example I provided above is just one of=20
> many situations that we may do so.

Performance improvements...such as taking advantage of built-in compiler
type traits?  If that were the case, I could see the rationale for using
internal type traits as a proxy for such optimization.  So I guess there
is SOME value after all.  :)

Brad.