Re: [boost] Re: safe_bool alternative?

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-24 19:26:41

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Douglas Paul Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>> 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?).
> 
> I know that.  I was asking about bool_testable.  Wasn't that the
> component under discussion?  It's a completely different technique,
> IMO.

I thought so. IMO, it is safe_bool that should get a fast-track review.
In the review, proponents of bool_testable can make their case.

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