From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-10 10:41:43
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> Unfortunately you do use std::basic_string, even if you don't spell its
> In my opinion, it would be much easier to just add const char *
> overloads to the standard exception classes than to somehow fix the
> to allow such code to not be considered 'use' of std::basic_string.
I agree completely. Trying to treat an implicit conversion as "non-use" of
the target type would introduce at best huge confusion, at worst a semantic
quagmire that would weaken the entire standard. I realize that this sounds
dramatic, but I guess I really mean it.
David Abrahams, C++ library designer for hire
C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk