[boost] Re: safe_bool alternative?

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