Subject: Re: [boost] PR: Remove safe_bool idiom from boost.tribool
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-05-19 18:34:49
As usual, discussions have gotten off on various tangents.
My proposal is to replace the safe_bool idiom used in boost::tribool
with a simple operator bool.
I maintain that this will
a) not break anything already working.
b) make tribool better model tri-valued logic
c) address a failing in gcc which inhibits the current tribool from
d) So that all in all we will be in a slightly better place.
That's the whole thing.
It's not about
a) whether or not tribool itself is good idea
b) whether tribool is correctly named
c) whether implicit conversions to bool in other cases like optional are
a good idea
d) or anything else other than the above.
My intent to to get this PR accepted so I don't have to clone tribool
into my safe numerics library. Selfish I know - but there it is.
So far no one has posted any reason why my proposal would not be an
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk