"John Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >"Thomas Witt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> IIUC is_based_and_derived<T,T> evaluates to true as well. Is a class T
>> >> strictly speaking a base class of itself?
>> >
>> >Yes
>>
>> That's a convention of is_base_and_derived though. To the standard a
>> class is not a base of itself, so this convention should be
>> documented. In other words, you have to specify whether the ordering
>> is strict or not.
>
> Yes, a class is it's own superclass/subclass, but IMO not it's own
> base: so it is a bug in the implementation.
I'd like to suggest changing the documentation to match the
implementation at this point. I know of a few places where I have
relied on the current semantics, and I'm sure that's the case for
others as well. I'm not set on this course, but I think it's worth
considering.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
