>From: "Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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;
You're right that it isn't implicitly convertible to void in this sense. What I was thinking of was that if you return a value from a function, it may be ignored by the caller. However, you're right that this doesn't have anything to do with implicit conversion - there can't even be a void object, so it clearly isn't obeying LSP. void *, with regard to other pointers, is something else, though. Regards, Terje _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
