From: Maarten Kronenburg (M.Kronenburg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-25 18:50:28
Thanks, I see it now in [lib.util.smartptr.shared.obs].
Thanks to you all for pointing me to this
and solving my bool conversion problem.
So if( x ) should be possible for integer x,
and I will include this in my document,
and test it for a few compilers.
"Pedro Lamarão" <pedro.lamarao_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
Maarten Kronenburg escreveu:
> Thanks for your comments.
> The integer is not a drop-in replacement for any base type;
> because it accesses its data through a pointer, and has to
> check on certain conditions and carries etc, it is much slower
> than the base types.
He meant by "drop-in replacement" that an integer object should behave
exactly like an int object, so that we could just replace
and everything just work like magic.
That would be highly desirable.
> A conversion operator will generate ambiguities in
> expressions, even a bool conversion operator,
> because bool can be implicitly converted to int.
That can be avoided with the trick mentioned by the parent:
> First, an operator unspecified_bool_type(), like the one found in
The trick involves a pointer-to-member; those are not implicitly
convertible to int, but are "testable for nullness".
The unique_ptr proposal also uses this trick.
-- Pedro Lamarão _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk