RE: [boost] Re: safe_bool alternative?

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
alternatives.  

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?

Sam

--LongSig
******************
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.