In the same fashion - I think that if type is not cv void, not reference
and
not convertible to bool (via standard conversion) then it's class type.
It might be useful implementation for compliers on which the SFIAE
technique
to detect class type doesn't work.
The current version is kind of
John Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
010201c2a5c9$c1feb560$43e7193e@1016031671">news:010201c2a5c9$c1feb560$43e7193e@1016031671...
given the Standard's wording in 3.9/1:
... There are two kinds of types: fundamental types and compound types.
...
isn't the current implementation of
Rani Sharoni wrote:
In the same fashion - I think that if type is not cv void, not reference and
not convertible to bool (via standard conversion) then it's class type.
Hm, could you show an implementation? I think that the convertible to
bool might be a problem for classes with operator
Howard Hinnant wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 09:59 AM, Rani Sharoni wrote:
In the same fashion - I think that if type is not cv void, not
reference and
not convertible to bool (via standard conversion) then it's class type.
It might be useful implementation for compliers
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 11:54 AM, Daniel Frey wrote:
It might be useful to distinguish classes into unions and non-unions,
but the standard clearly says that a union *is* a class (9/1).
The standard also clearly says that unions and classes are different
categories of types
