Re: [boost] Re: safe_bool alternative?

From: Douglas Paul Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-24 12:31:07

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Daniel Frey wrote:
> I'm concerned about this issue, too. It seems that bool_testable isn't
> the small and side-effect-free enhancement we hoped. During it's
> development, I think the above problem wasn't raised.

As far as I know the issue was first raised in September:
  http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg52263.php

> > But alas, we don't review changes to libraries after they're accepted.
>
> bool_testable is a new part of the operators library which has not yet
> been in any official version. The fast-track-review-process wasn't in
> place when I added it (AFAIK), so should we do the fast-track-review
> now? I'm open to suggestions, even if it means to remove bool_testable
> (or postpone it until 1.32.0).

I think a fast-track review would be appropriate, and it seems to meet all
of the criteria. Since there are no reviews running presently, perhaps it
could start Real Soon Now.

        Doug