From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-17 18:51:29
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:49:26 -0800
Jesse Jones <jejones_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> This makes it tougher to include the bool
> >> conversion (how do we know if a functor has a real target or
> >> not?), which I consider essential.
> >
> >The bool conversion can be handled by inclusion of a default
> >constructor that sets the "impl" pointer to null.
>
> Yep (of course a const void* conversion would be better than bool).
Why is that? A bool conversion says "valid" or "invalid" to call.
A const void* implies some sort of useful value (which would be...?).
Doug Gregor