Re: [boost] [safebool] Can we generalize it and put it into utilities?

Subject: Re: [boost] [safebool] Can we generalize it and put it into utilities?
From: Vladimir Batov (vladimir.batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-31 23:06:16

> Eugene Wee <crystalrecursion <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > I glanced over "explicit conversion operators" in C++0x. It did not struck
> > me as relevant to safe_bool. Care to elaborate?
> 
> It is relevant since you can say, define an explicit conversion function to
> convert to bool, and yet avoid the very problems with say, also allowing
> implicit conversion to int, that the safe bool idiom is used to avoid. In
> other words, it is a language feature directly designed to replace the safe
> bool idiom, and more.

Ah, my bad, I was damn looking at something completely else. :-( Now I found the
relevant section (12.3.2. Conversion functions) and see that adding 'explicit'
seem to fix all the problems we are now trying to solve with safe_bool. Thanks
for setting me straight. Problem solved then... well, it is being taken care of,
anyway. Sorry for all the noise.

Thanks,
V.