Re: [boost] Re: is_base_and_derived question

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-31 12:14:09

Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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

I'd rather settle on one for the sake of simplicity and see if it's
enough for people.  Once you provide two interfaces, you're sort of
stuck supporting them both.

-- 
                       David Abrahams
   dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution