|
|
Boost : |
From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-25 13:53:33
David Abrahams wrote:
>
> Daniel Frey <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > That won't work as you made it a nested struct so it is still different
> > for all instantiations. I think Dave meant to go for this one:
>
> Yup, that's what I meant. BTW, so this safe_bool thing can get
> further re-used it might make sense to make a special friend class
> which just has access to the type... or at that point, just make the
> type publicly accessible.
Can you elaborate a bit? I imagine that although the technical
implementation might be identical, the sematics of the names could be a
problem. Helping the compiler to remove unneeded instantiations is a
good thing, but it shouldn't affect readability, so I'd like to see some
more concrete uses and whether we can use safe_bool (or any other name)
that matches all these "typical" uses.
Regards, Daniel
-- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk