Re: [boost] Re: Re: is_base_and_derived question

From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-29 09:38:28

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Maddock wrote:
|
| The LWG suggested (and I agreed with) a change to "is_base".

To me this is a bad idea, from a usability point of view. I strongly
object against making this change. The argument ordering is perfectly
obvious in is_base_and_derived, there is no such hint in is_base.

Just my 2c

Thomas

- --
Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Witt
Institut fuer Verkehrswesen, Eisenbahnbau und -betrieb, Universitaet
Hannover
voice: [phone] - 4273, fax: [phone]
http://www.ive.uni-hannover.de
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+N+dk0ds/gS3XsBoRAtD6AJwIvNqyKNwqGPMp0yKnm+AtG/dTDwCfRMjx
PvxWiOpHeLVmyCCXu2No6uQ=
=x9Oo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----