> That's very well put; I don't think anyone thought very carefully > about the meaning of "convertible" before, and I think we could > probably stand to tighten up our documentation in this area. All it > says right now is: > > Evaluates to true if type T is convertible to type U. > Types T and U must not be incomplete, abstract or function types. > > Can you suggest an appropriate technical explanation?
Well the wording in the standardisation proposal says: "value: defined to be true only if type From is implicitly-convertible to type To (4.0). Which really says it all IMO (by reference to section 4.0 of the standard. John Maddock http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
