Boost logo

Boost :

From: Robert Kawulak (kawulak_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-23 18:38:45


> From: David Abrahams

> > second_reference second() { return
> > static_cast<second_reference>(*this); }
> Should be boost::implicit_cast<second_reference>(*this);

Hmmm... I've tried to replace static_cast with implicit_cast, but
then the compilation error with DM comes back :-/

> > If the problem wasn't mentioned before, then I'd suggest to
> > it. The solution is quite easy to introduce and AFAICT has no
> > negative side effects. Does anybody object to this?
> I don't object, but the obfuscation of the code is a negative
> effect.

100% right :-) By saying 'negative side effects' I meant no new
compilation or usage problems introduced by this fix. Of course
the cleaner code the better, but OTOH adding a few casts into the
implementation seems rather a low price to pay for better

What is the procedure for adding fixes like this? Is the author
of the file responsible for this, or should I provide the fixed

Best regards,

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at