From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-30 07:40:59
Daniel Frey <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Daniel, I also had to apply massive patching to accessibility in
>> bool_testable. It fails on so many compilers that I begin to have
>> doubts that making it private is legal. Could you check, please?
> It seems to me that replacing the plain "operator bool()" by the
> safe-bool-idiom in Wrapper1 caused the problems. This can't work, as
> bool_testable tries to provide safe bool conversion, too, and both
> idioms together are incompatible. In fact, bool_testable was meant to
> replace the safe-bool-idiom, making it easier for users to write their
> operator bool(). Maybe I should clarify this in the documentation to
> prevent others from making the same error. Can you please correct it
> and see if the problems you were seeing remain?
Blast. I did that in a misguided attempt to try to get vc7 to pass
the tests. It's really badly broken, though. Hopeless, if you ask me.
OK, rolling back those changes and testing... seems to work!
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk