David Abrahams wrote: > > Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > That won't work as you made it a nested struct so it is still different > > for all instantiations. I think Dave meant to go for this one: > > Yup, that's what I meant. BTW, so this safe_bool thing can get > further re-used it might make sense to make a special friend class > which just has access to the type... or at that point, just make the > type publicly accessible.
Can you elaborate a bit? I imagine that although the technical implementation might be identical, the sematics of the names could be a problem. Helping the compiler to remove unneeded instantiations is a good thing, but it shouldn't affect readability, so I'd like to see some more concrete uses and whether we can use safe_bool (or any other name) that matches all these "typical" uses. Regards, Daniel -- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: http://www.aixigo.de _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost