From: John Maddock (John_Maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-18 07:01:41
>I've been pondering the same thing. But isn't "testing for a type that
>isn't anything else" the algorithm currently used for is_class? I may be
>a version or two behind. I'm looking at:
OK you're way behind - there's a complete new version/reorganisation since
then, however you're quite right, we use that methodology already for
How about this: are functions implicitly convertible to void*, I *think*
they are but haven't checked yet, a function would then be a type that is
implicitly convertible to void* (but not a user defined conversion), but is
not a pointer or array. Does this make sence?
>btw John, really nice job on this lib!
- John Maddock
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk