Re: [boost] Re: safe_bool alternative?

From: Douglas Paul Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-27 11:59:43

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Daniel Frey wrote:
> So the question is: Why should we add bool_testable at all? I think that
> the operators library should offer it to make it easy for those that are
> unaware (and probably ignorant) to the problem at all. Users add
> operator bool(). The operators library allows them to add a single line
> to protect it. They don't need to know the exact details. That's better
> than doing nothing and it's easier to learn about Peter's idiom.
> Hopefully they switch to Peter's idiom when they have time, but since
> then, bool_testable should be helpful.

When we accept a library in Boost, we do so only when we can agree that we
have the best interface with the proper semantics that anyone can think
of. bool_testable does not (and, to the best of our knowledge, can not)
give us the proper semantics. We won't use bool_testable and we won't
recommend it to users; why would we include it? Is Peter's idiom _really_
that hard to implement?

        Doug