From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-24 17:45:45
Daniel Frey <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>My own feeling is that even if we can't find a solution to those two
>>>problems then bool_testable is still a sufficiently useful addition to the
>>>operators library for it to remain. I think it seems an obvious omission
>>>from the operators library - providing all operators except bool
>>>comparison. Of course this problem should be reflected in the documentation
>>>if we cannot solve it.
> As I said above, documenting Peter's idiom is an alternative. AFAICS
> the best we have so far...
It seems to me it should be possible to make bool_testable use
Peter's idiom. Am I missing something?
-- 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