"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [...]
> > That's a pretty major problem, though. Your idea also cuts off
> > implicit conversions.
>
> Do you mean user-defined conversio
"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Is this is a worthwhile idea to pursue? Am I missing any critical
> > details? I realize there is still a problem with const vs. non-const
> > references, but I won't e
