"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 001b01c2c6f4$71f7a490$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:001b01c2c6f4$71f7a490$1d00a8c0@pdimov2... > From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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?"
The answer is in mc++d and also in Daniel Frey's post: << I like that "base" and "derived" reflect the parameters order, but I always mix up "super" and "sub" :-/ >> > 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>? Well, clearly void is no base. Even if we also define is_super_and_subtype, void is hardly a supertype of everything. Andrei _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
