On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:14:14 +0100, David Abrahams wrote: > Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> David Abrahams wrote: >>> >>> Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> >>> > That won't work as you made it a nested struct so it is still >>> > different for all instantiations. I think Dave meant to go for this >>> > one: >>> >>> Yup, that's what I meant. BTW, so this safe_bool thing can get >>> further re-used it might make sense to make a special friend class >>> which just has access to the type... or at that point, just make the >>> type publicly accessible. >> >> Can you elaborate a bit? I imagine that although the technical >> implementation might be identical, the sematics of the names could be a >> problem. > > Can you elaborate a bit? How could the semantics be a problem?
As Doug already showed it's a problem when you use the same safe_bool for all your classes as a replacement for operator bool. I though that you have some other uses in mind that are more than just a replacement for operator bool. If so, I wondered what this could be and if the name would then be a problem. If it's just meant to replace operator bool, the names are perfect - although the problem Doug mentioned remains. Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost