On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 20:01:15 -0800, "Eric Niebler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Gennaro Prota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >> >> Well, then I imagine you would prefer the old semantics. Was there >> anybody complaining that being not enough? >> > >Yes, I was. A while back, I pointed out to Rani that is_base_and_derived >was insufficient to implement is_com_ptr, a trait I needed. In COM >programming, every interface inherits from IUnknown, and many COM objects >implement multiple interfaces. So is_base_and_derived<IUnknown, >MyCOMObject> was almost always ambiguous. > >I was content to gripe, but Rani actually did something about it. The new >behavior of is_base_and_derived is very welcome, IMO. Yes, Rani pointed out the usage for COM interfaces too, and that's a good one. I'm only a little perplexed about inaccessible bases, because the relevant example looks a little artificial; that doesn't mean that there aren't better examples, or that it is a good example but I have not understood it. As I said in another post, let's see how will this behave in practice. After all, boost is (also) a sort of test-bed for C++ libraries. Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost