On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:19:53 -0500, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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. And since Peter D. is not in the habit of making trivial errors, this makes me wonder in fact what definition of "supertype" he was considering. Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
