[boost] Re: is_base_and_derived question

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-31 11:34:25

On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:27:25 -0500, David Abrahams
<dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>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?

Who cares? The new toy is so cool! :-) Seriously, Peter is a wise man.
Personally I would go with his suggestion about having two (or more)
separate metafunctions, at least for the sake of generality, and to
allow people to experiment with the new semantics. I hope nobody will
then come out asking for

   is_ambiguous_and_anyway_protected_base_class<>
   is_ambiguous_with_at_least_one_private_base_class<>
   is_ambiguous_with_one_private_and_three_indirect_protected_...<>
   ...

sigh... :-)

Genny.