Date: 2003-09-17 11:31:59
On Wednesday 17 September 2003 11:46 am, Guillaume Melquiond wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, gregod_at_[hidden] wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 September 2003 10:57 am, Mat Marcus wrote:
> > > * Safe optional<bool>'s as tri-bools would be quite useful to me. I
> > > personally would sacrifice the convenience of testing without using
> > > is_initialized() to gain tri-bools but I don't want to cover old
> > > territory. Perhaps there's some other way of making optional<bool>'s
> > > safer to use. What would you think of, say, using enable_if (or better
> > > disable_if) to disable implicit bool conversion and operator! for when
> > > T == bool (or when T already is_convertible to bool)?
> > >
> > > - Mat
> > Why not use a real tribool? There's one in the sandbox.
> > Doug
> Speaking of tribool, will it ever be reviewed? It is something I would
> like to see in Boost.
I'll finish off the documentation and get it into the review queue.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk