[boost] Re: safe_bool alternative?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-24 17:42:14

Douglas Paul Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Daniel Frey wrote:
>> I'm concerned about this issue, too. It seems that bool_testable isn't
>> the small and side-effect-free enhancement we hoped. During it's
>> development, I think the above problem wasn't raised.
>
> As far as I know the issue was first raised in September:
>   http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg52263.php
>
>> > But alas, we don't review changes to libraries after they're accepted.
>>
>> bool_testable is a new part of the operators library which has not yet
>> been in any official version. The fast-track-review-process wasn't in
>> place when I added it (AFAIK), so should we do the fast-track-review
>> now? I'm open to suggestions, even if it means to remove bool_testable
>> (or postpone it until 1.32.0).
>
> I think a fast-track review would be appropriate, and it seems to meet all
> of the criteria. 

Does it?  Which library is using it?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com