On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:33:04 +0100, Terje Slettebų <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Even if we also define is_super_and_subtype, >> void is hardly a supertype of everything. > >Well, it could be. It's like an "abstract base class", even for built-in >types - everything can be implicitly converted to void What do you mean? In standard terminology, for an expression e to be *implicitly* convertible to T you must be able to write: T t = e; Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
