Re: [boost] Re: safe_bool alternative?

From: Douglas Paul Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-24 17:57:50

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, David Abrahams wrote:
> > 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?

Function and shared_ptr use the safe_bool idiom, and I'm sure it's in
other places as well (Optional, perhaps?). It's the same situation as with
enable_if: implementations abound in Boost, so the library seeks to unify
those implementations. The differences here are that (1) the
functionality's already been in CVS for 6 months ready for users to apply
and (2) we don't seem to have a consensus that bool_testable is the right
way to go. #1's somewhat irrelevant, because the fast-track review did not
exist when it was added. #2 seems like the purpose of the review.

        Doug