From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-11-17 23:55:35
> At 12:50 PM 11/17/99 -0600, Ed Brey wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>>This leaves open the issue of the specialization of the classes for
>>non-commutative operators, that is all the operators for which
>>reversing operands changes semantics. The classes in question are
>>those that have only one friend: subtractable, dividable, and
>>modable. AFAICT, none of these classes need specialization, because
>>there is never any ambiguity for them.
>
> AFAIK, that is correct, and works correctly with GCC and CodeWarrior,
> but it is up to Dave to make the call.
>
>>One more issue: divideable is spelled wrong; should be dividable.
>
> My American Heritage Dictionary does spell it "dividable", but again,
> it is up to Dave.
>
I accept both proposed changes. Thank you for the review, Ed.