> It seems to me that the current implementation of is_convertible will > conclude that int* is convertible to int[10]. That's because when a > function parameter is of array type, it is treated just like a pointer. But > according to 4/3 of the standard: > > "An expression e can be _implicitly converted_ to a type T if an only if the > declaration "T t=e;" is well-formed for some invented variable t (8.5)." > > By this definition, int* is not implicitly convertible to int[10]. So it > seems is_convertible is broken in this regard. IMO, is_convertible<A,B> > should always return false when B is an array type.
Yep, I would agree with that. John Maddock http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
