Re: [boost] [contract] concepts: pseudo-signatures vs. usage patterns

Subject: Re: [boost] [contract] concepts: pseudo-signatures vs. usage patterns
From: Andrew Sutton (asutton.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-11 20:12:55

> You're missing the point.  I claim the associated "argument type" of
> Predicate is char.  The value type of the sequence (int) is convertible
> to the associated argument type.  That's all that's required according
> to the text.

Sorry... you're right. If the requirement is that the value type is
convertible to the argument type, then yes.  Fortunately that's not
what we required in n3351.