>From: "Daniel Frey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > David Abrahams wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > I'd rather settle on one for the sake of simplicity and see if it's > > enough for people. Once you provide two interfaces, you're sort of > > stuck supporting them both. > > I agree. And we should keep in mind that people can use "trivial" > combination anyway, so we needn't offer them all with separate > names/interfaces, e.g. > > is_base_and_derived< B, D >::value || is_void< B >::value > > is easy enough for users, so if they want to use "void" as a base for > all classes, they can do it that way. All we need to do is to provide > very good documentation.
This may solve the issue of how or whether to support the semantics of the current implementation. That may be something like: is_base_and_derived<B, D>::value && is_convertible<D, B>::value Regards, Terje _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
