It seems to me that the current implementation of is_convertible will conclude that int* is convertible to int[10]. That's because when a function parameter is of array type, it is treated just like a pointer. But according to 4/3 of the standard:
"An expression e can be _implicitly converted_ to a type T if an only if the declaration "T t=e;" is well-formed for some invented variable t (8.5)." By this definition, int* is not implicitly convertible to int[10]. So it seems is_convertible is broken in this regard. IMO, is_convertible<A,B> should always return false when B is an array type. Eric _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
