From: Sam Partington (sam.partington_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-27 14:27:57
> OK, you are right. We have bool_testable in CVS, so we are discussing
> whether or not it should be removed (and probably replaced by a good
> explanation of Peter's idiom) or if it should be officially
> released in
> 1.31.0. I think it should be removed, I would just like to make sure
> that we agree on it. If I find some time at the weekend, I'll try to
> write some appropriate docs and prepare the patch to remove
> bool_testable. Even if we want bool_testable later, we can
> still add it
> in 1.32.0.
Wait, how did we get here when we haven't even properly discussed the
I have posted another implementation in the thread "Another safe-bool
aternative", which I believe meets the criteria required, and its not been
commented on. And yet here we are discussing removing it completely?
This e-mail has been sent from Imagination Technologies Limited.
PowerVR, Metagence, Ensigma and PURE Digital are divisions
of Imagination Technologies Limited.
The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment,
is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely
for the addressee(s) and access to this e-mail by anyone else is
unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying or distribution or use of the information contained in this
e-mail, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and then
delete it from your system.
Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure,
error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors
or omissions which arise as a result.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the author, except
where the author specifies and, with authority, states them to be the
views of Imagination Technologies Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk