From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Yes, a class is it's own superclass/subclass, but IMO not it's own > > > base: so it is a bug in the implementation. > > > > I'd like to suggest changing the documentation to match the > > implementation at this point. I know of a few places where I have > > relied on the current semantics, and I'm sure that's the case for > > others as well. I'm not set on this course, but I think it's worth > > considering. > > At the cost of adding an extra name, maybe it would be nice to provide > is_base_and_derived and is_super_and_subclass.
I've always felt that is_base_and_derived is a funny name. is_base_of<B, D> and is_derived_from<D, B> both look pronounceable(sp?) to me: "is B a base of D? is D derived from B?" While we're at it, is the final verdict that is_base_and_derived<void, X> should be false? What about is_base_and_derived<void, void>? _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
