Subject: Re: [boost] [Block Pointer] Review Request
From: Lars Viklund (zao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-03 15:39:34
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 12:28:59PM -0700, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> On 5/3/2011 7:47 AM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>> On 5/3/2011 2:43 AM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
>>> or if(p) rather sorry.
>> I imagine this is more convenient, yes. I'll make the change in a bit.
> The problem is this only happens in the destructor and operator bool is
> usually called many times outside of the destructor. If I check for
> cyclicism inside operator bool then this would create unnecessary
> overhead for the calls outside of the destructor.
I would be careful about calling it `operator bool' as it really is (as
far as I can see from the source) an `operator unspecified-bool-type'.
Your previous use of the term forced me to check the source to make sure
that you hadn't fallen into the trap of accidentally converting to bool
instead of something bool-like.
-- Lars Viklund | zao_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk