From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-17 07:47:57
David Abrahams wrote:
> > Related your mentioning of incoming implicit conversions:
> where do you
> > think these may take place? Do I miss something?
> simple_future<int> f1 = bind(slow_fac, 4);
> This won't work if the single-argument ctor for
> simple_future<int> used here is marked explicit, so I
> conclude that it is not.
The constructor was intended to be non-explicit, just to allow for such
implicit conversions from any nullary functor. Is that too dangerous?
What's currently missing in the code is a concept check allowing to spot the
assignement of other types more easily (right now the compilation fails
somewhere deep inside the library if another type - other than a nullary
functor - is used to initialise a simple_future).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk