On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
I'm not at the PR point yet, need to clean up the implementation and check against the existing tests (which are pretty slim by the way) first.
On that note, do we want to fix type_traits/alignment_of, or have it leverage align/alignment_of? alignment_of in align is more conforming to the specification, supports T[] incomplete types, and appears to work for more cases too.
(John, check out https://github.com/boostorg/align/blob/master/test/alignment_of_test.cpp, which Peter improved vastly, and try it with boost::alignment_of instead of boost::alignment::alignment_of).
If the former (fixing up type_traits/alignment_of) is the best approach, I can probably submit a PR for that. If the latter route is preferable, we could just change type_traits/alignment_of.hpp to:
#include
namespace boost { using boost::alignment::alignment_of; }
(Boost.Align doesn't depend on Boost.Type_Traits, so there are no concerns there). I would prefer to avoid introducing new dependencies if possible given
On 28/05/2015 17:54, Glen Fernandes wrote: that one aim was for the new type_traits to depend on nothing but Config. So a PR would be good, will investigate those tests too. Thanks, John.