Why providing constexpr functions when traits would be enough?¶
Functions have a friendlier syntax and can be more flexible to use. Indeed, variadic functions accept a variable number of heterogeneous arguments while their trait counterpart only accept the values passed to the variadic non-type template parameters that can be implicitely converted to a same type. Furthermore, the non-type template parameters allowed are restricted to a smaller subset which do not include floating-points or custom types.
m3ta::all(true, 2, 4.0f); //< Valid. m3ta::AllT<bool, true, 2, 4>::value; //< Valid, implicit conversions of int to bool. m3ta::AllT<bool, true, 2, 4.0f>::value; //< Invalid due to the use of a float.
Why also providing traits on top of existing functions then?¶
Because functions can only return values, not types. Retrieving a constant value might be enough in most cases but not when used with the tag dispatching technique or in some SFINAE contexts where a type is expected to resolve which overload to use. Hence why each existing function is being wrapped into a trait inheriting from std::integral_constant.