Re: [boost] Re: is_base_and_derived question

From: Terje Slettebø (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-31 10:36:55

>From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>

> "John Maddock" <jm_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> >> Maybe you had the following variation on Terje's code in mind.
> >>
> >> The following worked with GCC3.1/2, VC6/7/7.1 and Comeau 4.3.0.1:
> >
> > Hey, now that one really does work well, I'm still testing here (doesn't
> > work with Borland, but I have a fallback position for that), but if
there
> > are no objections then you should expect to see the boost code updated
soon.
> > One question though - a lot of people seem to have worked on this: which
> > people deserve the copyright/credit listing?
>
> Soooo... Somewhere back in this thread Peter Dimov raised a serious
> question about whether this implements the semantics we want.  Was
> there ever agreement on that?

As I mentioned in an earlier posting, Rani's proposal does what the current
docs on is_base_and_derived says. It doesn't mandate public, unambiguous
base class. If one wants that semantic, then perhaps another trait could be
useful for it.

Regards,

Terje