Re: [boost] [conversion] implicit_cast undocumented

From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-30 07:13:01

"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:00b601c6258d$bb5f76d0$a9051c52_at_fuji...
>> BTW would there be any point in an is_implicitly_convertible<A,B>
>> type_trait?
>
> That's what is_convertible does now: tests for implicit convertibility.
> There's no way you can test for other kinds of valid (but explicit)
> conversions I believe.

Oops sorry for being too lazy to try that out before posting.  Perhaps it would
be useful to put that in the documentation for implicit_cast e.g

implicit_cast<t>(S)  will succeed wherever is_convertible<S,T>::value ==true and
will cause a compile time error wherever implicit_cast<t>(S)  will succeed
wherever is_convertible<S,T>::value ==false. Maybe could even do the reverse too
if implicit_cast was documented.

BTW Its a real pain that the parameter order for is_convertible isnt the other
way round IMO. Its confusing and error prone because casts go the other way. Is
there a reason for it?

Getting back to the original topic (or trying to anyway ).. So is the
documentation I provided for implicit_cast useful?

regards
Andy Little