Re: [boost] safe bool not safe enough ?

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.