Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually the reason for my question is a little strange :-) I hope to
> explain it in understandable English: Andrej said
>
> "void is hardly a supertype of everything"
>
>
> Rewording it, it is: "void is not a supertype of everything".
>
> This immediately made me think to why he didn't say: "not a supertype
> of anything". In other words I wondered: "is he implying that void is
> not a supertype of everything but *is* a supertype of something"? What
> it this "something"? :-) That's an example of my odd mental
> contortions.
Peter D. has effectively argued in the past that void *is* a supertype
of everything (well, every object type, as opposed e.g. to
function/function pointer types). Given the foregoing discussion
about squares and rectangles it may be the *only* supertype that we
can detect with certainty.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
