Re: [boost] Re: safe_bool alternative?

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-24 19:00:53

Douglas Paul Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.

Spirit has a safe_bool implementation in its core. I would also like
a unified implementation.

-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net