On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:27:25 -0500, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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? Who cares? The new toy is so cool! :-) Seriously, Peter is a wise man. Personally I would go with his suggestion about having two (or more) separate metafunctions, at least for the sake of generality, and to allow people to experiment with the new semantics. I hope nobody will then come out asking for is_ambiguous_and_anyway_protected_base_class<> is_ambiguous_with_at_least_one_private_base_class<> is_ambiguous_with_one_private_and_three_indirect_protected_...<> ... sigh... :-) Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
