"Sam Partington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought of this too, but this limits the user to using a member based
> operator!. So I couldn't do this :
>
> class A : public boost::bool_testable<A>
> {
> public:
> int get();
> };
>
> bool operator!(const A& a)
> {
> return a.get() == 0;
> }
>
> Of course I've never actually wanted to do that, so its maybe not a problem.
> After all the conversion operator itself has to be a member, so it probably
> isn't much of a restriction at all.
Ahem. The operators library is *all about* defining free function
operators. I don't think you should introduce a dependence on being
a member function.
> Then again, how much does the safe_bool_conversion function cost?
More than I'd like. I'd prefer to use a single data member pointer,
since it's likely to be more efficient.
struct safe_bool
{
#ifndef BOOST_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_FRIENDS
private:
template <class T, class B> friend class bool_testable;
#endif
int x;
typedef int safe_bool::*type;
};
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
