Subject: Re: [boost] safe bool not safe enough ?
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-03-14 10:38:42
John Maddock wrote:
> It's not directly connected - except that what should have failed to
> compile - a function that looks like:
> bool functor(number const& a, number const& b)
> return a - b;
I see; yes, this is something that works with "safe bool" and has been
explicitly disallowed for the new explicit operator bool.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk