>From: "Terje Slettebų" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Soooo... Somewhere back in this thread Peter Dimov raised a serious > > question about whether this implements the semantics we want. Was > > there ever agreement on that? > > As I mentioned in an earlier posting, Rani's proposal does what the current > docs on is_base_and_derived says. It doesn't mandate public, unambiguous > base class. If one wants that semantic, then perhaps another trait could be > useful for it.
Or, change the description in the docs to reflect the semantics of the current version. Either one or the other needs to be done, I think, because as it stands, the description doesn't match the current implementation. So either we change the map, or change the terrain. :) Regards, Terje _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
