Re: [boost] Re: safe_bool alternative?

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-25 10:54:52

Sam Partington wrote:
>
> Documentation of Peters idiom in a very limited form, including why it is
> not suitable in a generic case is available in the rationale part of the
> bool_testable notes :
>
>
http://boost-consulting.com/boost/libs/utility/operators.htm#safe_bool_note

I'm not sure whether the statement "this implementation required the user to
provide operator!" is correct. Operator! in shared_ptr is a Borland-specific
workaround.