From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-16 12:52:39
At Tuesday 2002/10/15 14:47, you wrote:
>On Tuesday 15 October 2002 04:38 pm, Craig Henderson wrote:
> > "v m" <boost_vam_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > > 3. There are several differences between the standard
> > > and the current archetype classes, especially the
> > > iterator archetype classes. For example, almost all
> > > the relational operators (operator==, operator!= etc)
> > > have a return type of bool whereas the standard
> > > requires a return type convertible to bool. Would
> > > changing the return type have any unwanted
> > > consequences (not particularly in the
> > > concept_archetype.hpp) ?
> > How is this not conforming to the standard? The return type is bool. The
> > standard requires a return type that is convertible to bool (Table 72).
> > bool is implicitly convertible to bool. What's the problem?
> > The synopsis of the iterator class in 24.2 itself defines the return type
> > as bool.
>It's conforming, but it's not the best possible archetype. Concept archetypes
>should push the requirements as far as possible. So the relational operators
>for the archetype should each return a unique type that is implicitly
>convertible to 'bool' (thus making sure that no code assumes that the return
>type is exactly 'bool').
My initial reaction was to simply reply "Are you on drugs?"
On second thought, maybe I should just ask you for some of whatever you're
I see no point in intentionally obfuscating (look it up) some things which
are meant to be used as tools.
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
PGP RSA fingerprint = 4D20 EBF6 0101 B069 3817 8DBF C846 E47A
PGP D-H fingerprint = 98BC 65E3 1A19 43EC 3908 65B9 F755 E6F4 63BB 9D93
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk