Re: [boost] Re: is_convertible corner case

From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-22 06:46:28

> That's very well put; I don't think anyone thought very carefully
> about the meaning of "convertible" before, and I think we could
> probably stand to tighten up our documentation in this area.  All it
> says right now is:
>
>     Evaluates to true if type T is convertible to type U.
>     Types T and U must not be incomplete, abstract or function types.
>
> Can you suggest an appropriate technical explanation?

Well the wording in the standardisation proposal says:

"value: defined to be true only if type From is implicitly-convertible to
type To (4.0).

Which really says it all IMO (by reference to section 4.0 of the standard.

John Maddock
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm